In a prosecution for the possession of disproportionate assets, once the prosecution proves the public servant's known sources of income and the value of assets found in their possession, the burden of proof shifts to the accused to provide a satisfactory account for the source of those assets.

J U D G M E N T

1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Kerala represented by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (`VACB' for short), challenging the judgment in C.C.No.44/2008 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram dated 30.05.2015.

2. Heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State/appellant as well as the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/accused in this case.

3. The prosecution case is that the first accused being a public servant, in the capacity of Medical Superintendent, Taluk Head Quarters, Mananthavadi, Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Muvattupuzha, Deputy Director, TB at the DHS Office, Thiruvananthapuram, District Medical Officer, Thiruvananthapuram, Additional Director of Health services (Family welfare), Thiruvananthapuram and the Director of Health Services, Thiruvananthapuram during the period from 01.01.1994 to 31.10.2005 and second accused, wife of the first accused who was also a public servant, viz., Civil Surgeon Grade-1, Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Muvattupuzha and Superintendent, Women & Child Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, during the said period, in furtherance of their common intention of amassing enormous assets by any means and in pursuance thereof, they acquired huge assets during the said period. It is alleged that the first accused acquired assets worth Rs.60,29,656/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Six only) in his name and in the name of his two daughters, who were having no independent source of income during the said period of which assets worth Rs.24,54,988/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Eight only) was found disproportionate to his known source of income during the aforesaid period, for which the first accused could not satisfactorily account. The second accused Doctor was found to have acquired assets amounting to Rs.48,02,315/- (Rupees Forty- Eight Lakhs Two Thousand Three Hundred and Fifteen only) during the said period which was found to be disproportionate to her known source of income and the second accused is also seen to have incurred expenditure of Rs.7,30,229/- (Rupees Seven. Lakh Thirty Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Nine only) in excess of her total income during the said period and thereby the first and second accused were found to be in possession of assets amounting to total sum of Rs.72,57,303/- (Rupees Seventy Two Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand Three Hundred and Three only) as on 31.10.2005 for which the first and second accused could not satisfactorily account for. It is on this premise the first and second accused alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act, 1988’ for short hereafter) and Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (`IPC’ for short hereafter).

4. In this matter, the learned Special Judge proceeded with trial against the respondent. During trial, PW1 to PW64 were examined and Exts.P1 to P211(f) were marked on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the defence, DW1 to DW6 were examined and Exts.D1 to D18 were marked.

5. The learned Special Judge, on appreciation of evidence and on hearing both sides, found that the accused did not commit the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. Accordingly, the respondent/accused was acquitted.

6. While assailing the judgmen