The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. This criminal appeal is frled by the appeliant, aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.10.2OO9 in C.C. No. 14 of 2OO3, passed by the Additional Special Learned Special Judge for sPE & ACB Cases, City civil court, Hyderabad, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs'5,000/-' and in default of payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant/accused served as the Assistant Director of Agriculture from 30.4.1991 to

31.5.1999. On credible information that the appellant, while working in various capacities in the Agricultural Department and as Assistant Director of Agriculture, had acquired substantial assets in his name and the names of his dependents, a case was registered under Cr' No' 5/ACB-HR/9Tonl2.3.LggT.Thecasewasregisteredundersections 13(2)readwithl3(1)(e)ofthePreventionofCorruptionAct'1988'on the authorization of the Additional Director, ACB, Hyderabad, vide proceedings no. 45/RCH|IHMR|gT dated 22'3'1997 ' artd an investigation was initiated. 4

3. During :he investigation, after obtaining search rvarrants from the Hon'ble CotLrt on 23.3.1997, searches were s imultaneously conducted at ttLe appellant's residential premises at no. 4-I-124, Attapur village, R,mga Reddy District, at his house located at no. 3-5- 199/A/7, Harivih,a"r Colony, Narayanguda, and at his off.ce situated in Nalgonda. F'urthe rmore, the appellant's residential house was also searched under section 165 of CrPC, during which incriminating documents r:elatirrg to assets, income, and expenditure) were seized. During the course of the investigation, a locker bearing no. 19, Indian Bank, main bran,:h, Koti, was also found, and several incriminating documents were seized. Another locker, locker no. 41, at Indian Bank, main branch. Koti, rvas searched on 26.3.1992, and gold and jewellery worth Rs 27,7OO vzere found and inventoried.

4. For tht: purPose of the investigation, the check p,:riod was set from 1.2.1968 (th: date the appellant entered government service) to

23.3.1997 (the date of searches).

5. The incrim.nating material/documents seized during the searches rer-ealed that the appellant was in possession of assets amounting to Rs 28,20,569.28 as of the terminal date of the check period- The total i^come of the appellant during the chec:k period was calculated to be Rs 19,4s,111, and his expenditure was catculated to be Rs 14,75,5,+6.70 as of the terminal date of the check period. The 5 likelysavingsoftheappellantasofthetermina]dateofthecheck period were calculated to be Rs 4,69,565'00 (total income of Rs 1g,45,11 1.OO - total expenditure of Rs 14,75,546'70)'

6. Thus, the appellant was found to be in possession of disproportionate assets amounting to Rs 23,51,0O4 (total assets of Rs 28,20,569.28 - total savings of Rs 4,69,565'00), for which the appellant could not provide satisfactory accounts'

7. Since the appellant retired from service on 31'5' 1999' no sanction orders were required from the competent authorit5r to prosecute the aPPellant.

8. After the conclusion of the investigation, the appellant was charge-sheetedforoffencesundersectionsl3(1)(e)readwithl3(2)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988' g. The learned Special Learned Special Judge, having considered theevidenceonrecord,arrivedattheconclusionthatthetotalincome of the appellant was Rs. L7,Og,6l1'80 and the expenditure was Rs.1 1,32,434.80. The likely savings of the appellant were thus found to be Rs.5,77,L77.0O (Rs.17,O9,611'80 - Rs'11,32'434'8O)' Since the total assets were valued at Rs.25,82,852.28, the disproportionate amountwasarrivedatRs'2O,05,675'28(Rs'25'82'852'28 Rs.5,77,177.00). Accordingly, the Learned Special Judge convicted the appellant, as he was found to be in possession of diriproportionate b assets to the tune of Rs.20,05,675.28. ASSETS: 1O. The followin.g disputed items are discussed below: Item No. 2: Hqlse Bearins No. 4-1- 124, situate d at Attapur: According to the prosecution, the said house stands in the name of Smt. Taramma, wife of the appellant, and it was conslructed by the appellant after c.ismantling the old building. pW3 l, the Deputy Executive Engineer, evaluated the cost of construction a1. Rs. 1,13,000 and deposed that the period of construction was reported to be the year i981- He adcpted the rates from the sta,dard Sch. dule of Rates (sSR) ol the Roads a,d Buildings Department for the year 19go-g1. Exhibits P4 t and P42 are the reports submitted by him. The prosecution has aclded an amount of Rs. 1,13,O00 under this item. I 1. The lear,ed special Judge acknowredged that thr: wife of the appellant hacl inherited the house from her father under 1.he will dated

8.12.1975. Relyinll on the cross-examination of pW3 1, the learned special Judge ,oted that PW3 1 denied the suggestions put to him that the house was alr old structure ald was only renovated by the appellant's father-in-1aw. The learned special Judge also relied on ExP42, a letter adCressed by pW31 to the Inspector, and concluded that the details me.etioned by pw3 1 in his report clearry i,dicated trrat 7 the stmcture was not an otd building, but a completely new construction undertaken by the appellant after demolishing the earlier one.Basedonthis,thelearnedSpecialJudgeheldthatltemNo'2was a new building and included the cost of construction of Rs' 1'13'000 as part of the aPPellant's assets.

12. The appellant, however, argued that the house cannot be tagged to his assets. He contended that the house belonged to his father-in- law and was inherited by his wife through a will dated a'12'1975' marked as ExP91. Further, it was pointed out that PW3 1 did not mention the period of construction in his evrdence before the court' and the Investigating Ofhcer/PW39 did not furnish any such date to PW3leither'ThereisnobasisforPW3ladoptingtheSSRof1980-81. Though PW39 stated that the house was constructed in the name of the appellant's wife after dismantling the old house ' there is no evidence on record to support that claim'

13. It is admitted by PW39 that the house was inherited by the appellant's wife from her father' The prosecution's case is that the appellant dismantled the existing structure and constructed a new house. Accordingly, PW31 evaluated the building using the SSR for the year 1980-81, based on the assumption that construction took place in that year. Yet, the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that the appellant indeed undertook the construction or that I the building rvas constructed in 1980. There is nothinlJ on record to explain why PW3 1 used the SSR for that specific year. In his chief examination, PWI} 1 stated that the year of constmction was reported to be 1981, but in his cross-examination, he admitted that no such date was fi:rnished to him. Even in trxp42, pW3 1,r; letter, it is mentioned that the year of construction of the building is reported to be 1980-81. To vrorsen the matter, pw35, in his cross-examination, stated that l.ris in quiries revealed that the house bearinl3 No. 4-1-124 was constructed in 1988.

14. Therefore, the valuation of the building at Rs. 1,I3,00O, based on the SSR of 19€;0-8 1, cannot be considered reliable. It the ssR of a particular year is used for valuation, the prosecution rr.ust establish that construction occurred during that period. withou.- such proof, re\ring on a, arbitrary SSR undermines the evidentiarl, value of the report.

15. Moreover, ev:n the fact of construction by the appellant has not been established by the prosecution. pw39, in his cross- examination, admitted that the re was no evidence to show that t he appellant demolished the: olcl house and constructed a new one, apart from the fact that the appeltant paid tax. Even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that the appellant did construct the building. uniess it is proved that the construction took place in the year 1g80, the use of I the SSR of that year for valuation cannot be justified' Applying the wrong year,s SSR can skew the valuation and calnot be the basis for attributing the value to the appellalt's assets. Hence, the value of this item, i.e., Rs. 1,13,0O0, as assessed by the learned Special Judge, is excluded from consideration.

16. Item No. 4: Maruti Car bearins No.AP9F96OO: AccordingtoPW3g,IO,theappellantpurchasedthisvehiclein thenameofhiswife.Theregistrationofthecarwascompletedon 7.6.1994 in the name of Smt. G. Tara (wife of the appellant), and an amount of Rs. 8,750 was paid towards life tax' The vehicle was purchased under a Hire Purchase Agreement from M/s' Sunita Finance Corporation, from whom a loal of Rs' 1,57,261 was obtained' Consequently, an amount of Rs. 1,68,740 was added to the assets of the appellant.

17. The appellant contended that the car, valued at Rs' 1'68'740' rs registered in his wife's name and was purchased by her under a Hire Purchase Agreement from M/s. Sunita Finance Corporation' It was argued that she had been making the monthly payments towards the vehicle from her agricultural income and that there is no evidence to suggest that the appellant paid or contributed any amount towards the purchase of the car. 10

18. The learned Special Judge observed that there is no dispute regarding the cos,t of the vehicle. It was admitted thar: the car was purchased in thr: name of the appellant's wife and that she had inherited property from her father, which provided her with an independent s,ource of income. The learned Special Judge also noted that the counsel lbr the appellant submitted that if the income of the appellant's wil'e is treated as the income of the appellant, the item may be tagged to him. On this basis, the learned Special Judge tagged the item to the appe llant, stating that the aspect of inco me would be considered in detai_1 while assessing the income of the appellant.

19. However wleile dea_ling with Item No. 3 under the head of income, whiclL concerns the loan from Sunita Finance, Corporation amounting to Rs. 80,000, the learned Special Judge hel.t that since it had already been r;onsidered and treated that the car purchased in the name of the appellant's wife was an asset of the appellant, the claim that this amount of Rs. 80,000 was borrowed by thr,: wife of the appeliant coul<l not be accepted.

20. PWS, an officer from the Road Transport Authoriry, confirmed that according to the registration particulars of the vetricle, the car stands in the narr.e of G. Tara, wife of the appellant. Fr.rrther, pW37 stated that the Maruti car was in the name of the appella nt,s wife and that she had obta ined a loan to purchase the said ve hicle. pW39, 11 during cross-examination, admitted that there exists a loall account in the name of the appellant's wife with Sunita Finance Corporation'

21. The evidence clearly establishes that the car was purchased in the name of the appellant's wife, who had a loan account with Sunita Finance corporation. It is also admitted by PW39 that the wife of the appellant disposed of approximately 15 acres of land along with her sister during the relevant period.

22. Since the income of the wife of the appellant will be added to the income of the appellant, the assets of the wife of the appellant will also be added to the assets of the appellant. Hence, the frnding of the learned Special Judge under this item needs no interference'

23. ItemNo.5-Baiai Chetak Scooter bearinE No. AP 9L L529:. The prosecution,s case is that the said vehicle is registered in the name of the appellalt,s son. As per ExP6, which is a letter disclosing the registration particulars, the vehicle was registere d on 24.2.L996. A Iife tax of Rs. 1,910 and a registration fee of Rs' 45 were paid, ald the cost of the vehicle, amounting to Rs. 23,310, was added to the appellant's assets.

24. The learned Special Judge, relying upon the evidence of PW5' an officer from the RTA, PW39, the Investigating Officer, ald ExP6' held 12 that the vehicle rvas purchased by the appellant in the nrlme of his son and according,ly added Rs. 23,310 to the appellant's assets.

25. The appeilant contended that the scooter, which stands in the name of his son, was purchased by his wife for thejr son. It was argued that therr: was no evidence to show that the appellant made any payment towards this purchase and, therefore, the cost should not have been attributed to his assets.

26. PW5 deposr.d that ExP6 furnished the registration particulars ald that the scocter stands registered in the name of tl:re appellant,s son. PW39, in his cross-examination, admitted that there is no direct evidence sho"ving that the appellant paid the sale considr:ration for the purchase of th.e st ool er.

27. NevertJreless, it is clear that the appellant,s son was dependent on him at the relt:vant time. Even if the appellant,s claim is that the vehicle was purchased by his wife for their son, the same will be tagged to the assets of the appellant in light of the incorte of the wife being added to the income of the appellant. Thus, the f.nding of the learned Special Judge under this item needs no interferer.Lce.

28. Item No.9 - Cost of Household Articles: According to the prosecution, while conducting the search, an inventory of household articles was taken. During the search, IJ appellant and his family members were present, and they gave the values of the articles along with the year of acquisition. As per the said value, the cost of household articles was arrived at Rs 1,47,030, vide ExP47, and the same is added under this item to the assets of the appellant.

29 . It is the contention of the appellant that the entire household articles do not belong to him, since his sister-in-iaw, i.e., DW19, was also residing in the said house. According to the appellant, out of Rs 1,47,O3O, articles worth Rs 54,000 belong to him. He also states that the value of the clothes, i.e., an amount of Rs 18,350, was included in the household articles. The appellant has also contended that the ExP47 inventory proceedings were written at the ofhce of ACB under their dictation.

30. The learned special Judge stated that there is no whisper, either in the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant or in the written arguments, as to which articles from the list belong to the sister-in- law. A bald statement was made stating that only an amount of Rs 54,OOO has to be considered. The learned Special Judge stated that if the appellant's contention is that the household articles which do not belong to him are also included, he must be iI a position to identify which articles belong to him and which ones belong to the sister-in- law. 14

31. The learned Special Judge also stated that, as per the evidence of the mediator, .)W34, the sister-in-law of the appellant ald her son have statecl that no movables, either valuable or non-valuable, belonging to -:herl are in the possession or custody of the appellant. Thus, the learned Special Judge added an amount of Rs 1,47,03O/-.

32. ExP47 is thr: inventory report ald ExP48 is the search list. pW34 stated that ttLe v,:ar of acquisition of the articles found in the house and the price of the articles were furnished by the appe.lant, his wife, daughter, an<l sc n. He noted down the year of acquis ition and the price against eacLr article.

33. The appellart's contention that the entire household articles do not beiong to h..m, since his sister-in-1aw, i.e., DW19, was also residing in th,: said house, caanot be believed. It is D!!'19,s evidence that she is residing in the Attapur house (which is Itenr No. 2 in the assets) and t,hat the appellalt is residing in the house at Narayanguda (which is Item No 1 in the assets). Even according to p\V39, DW19 is living in the hour;e at Attapur village. Exp47 was con<lucted at the house in Nar,ayanguda (which is Item No. l); hence, it cannot be accepted that D\! 19's movables were aJso present in the appellant,s house at NarayanlSrda. 15

34. Further, if the appellant's contention is that the household articles which do not belong to him are also included' he must be in a position to say which articles belong to him and which from the list belong to the sister-in-law. 35. Since the appellant has not Iiled' aly evidence to show which articles belong to him and which belong to the sister-in-law and since' in any case, the sister-in-law was not residing in the appellant's house at Narayanguda-the appellant's contention cannot be believed'

36. According to the prosecution, as per ExP47 ' the cost of household articles was arrived at Rs 1,47'030' However' the value is incorrect, and the cost of household articles as per ExP47 actually comes to Rs 1,14,980. This value also excludes the cost of clothing expenditure, as PW39 and' PW42, the then Deputy Director of Accounts, who furnished ExP61 showing the household expenditure of the appellant, have deposed that the clothing expenditure of the appellant is included in ExP61' Hence' the same is excluded under ExP47. Thus, for the reasons discussed above' the amount of Rs 1,47,O3O, as assessed by the learned Special Judge' is incorrect' and the correct amount of Rs 1, 14,980 is added' 37. Item No. 1O - Gold and Silver Ornaments: According to the prosecution, during the house search conducted at the appellant's residence' gold and silver articles were -I 16 found. It was strrted that the wife of the appeflant and other family members proviclt:d the details of these articles. After excluding the value of items rhat were stated to be gifts, the remarning gold and silver articles we re valued at Rs. 44,600, and the prosecution added the same to the assets of the appellalt.

38. The appellant's contention is that he did not purchase any gold or silver ornamerts, and that if any such ornaments were found, they constituted ttrc s.' idhan property of his wife. It was arg.red that these items belonged to her and were not acquired by the appe[ant.

39. The le,rned Specia-l Learned Special Judge, however, noted that accordrng to the defence, as per Exp47, the value of the gold ornaments ca.me [o Rs. 14,900. The silver ornaments lound were not va-lued on thr: gr-ound that they belonged to the daughter of the appellant's co-brother. The learned Special Judge observed that pw34 had recordecl the 'rear of acquisition and price for each o1'the gord and silver ornaments lbund, and that this information regarling the year and cost was lur,ished by the appellant and his wife thc.mserves. The learned Special Judge referred. to Exp47, which contains rl detailed list of the gold a,d sil'zer articles, and noted that against Itenr No. 1-go1d bangles (2 in nunrber)-it was specilically mentioned that they were given by the father-in-law of the appellant. Similarly, the silver articles were noted to trelong to the daughter of the appellant,s co-brother.

40. The learned Special Learned Special Judge also referred to the will(ExP91),whichstatedthatthegoldandsilverornaments'articles' and vessels of the family were bequeathed in favour of the appellant's mother-in-law. In paragraph 6 at page 5 of the wilf it was mentioned that "a11 my heirs, survivors and legal representatives shall own all ornaments, big or small.""' While the learned Special Judge acknowledged that the appellant's wife did own some gold ornaments' he pointed out that there was no specific evidence on record identifying which of the gold items found during the search were part of that ownershiP.

41. The learned Special Learned Special Judge further held that the burden lies on the appellant to establish that the source of acquisition of the ornaments was independent and not from known sources of income. It was noted that if the appellant disputed the valuation or inclusion of these gold, items, it was for him to produce evidence to contradict the values and ownership as recorded in ExP47 ' Accordingly, the learned' Special Judge excluded only Item No' 1 (gold bangtes), and added the remaining value of Rs' 14'900 to the assets of the appellant.

42. PW34 deposed that the gold and silver ornaments found during the search were listed and recorded inExP4T' Although PW39' during cross-examination, admitted that no records were produced to show 18 that the appellant or his wife had purchased the g,rld and silver articles, it is :rue that in Exp4T , the years of a cquisition are mentioned alongside certain gold items. These entriers indicate the likely years c'f prrrchase. It wourd not have been possibre to provide such informatio:'r if the items were received as strid,har,., and had not been acquirecl bv purchase. Moreover, if these ornamenr.s were indeed stridhan, s.ch a claim should have been specificall1. mentioned in ExP47, just as it 'vas done next to Item No. 1, where it is clearry stated that the golcl banldes were gifted by the father_in_law. 43' Further, PW34 denied that any information was provided during the search to indi,:ate that the gold ornaments were stia,han property. PW39 also de,ie<l that Item No- 1o constitutes stidhan property of the appeliant's rvife. I t was also denied by pW34 that any of the gifted articles were recc,rded as purchased in Exp4Z. A re'iew of trxp4| confirms that ior several gold items, years and values are mentioned. 44' Moreover', Ite m No. 5 shourd also be excruded from the valuation. First, there is .no year of acquisition mentioned next to it. and second, the descriptio, n.xt to it is incomplete. The entry begins with the phrase, "stated. to te belonged 1o...,,, and does not specify the owner or context, leaving th: nature of that item unclear. Since thr: provenalce of Item No. 5 ;:emrrins ambig,ous, this particular amourrt should be excluded. 19

45. Therefore, from the amount of Rs. 14,900, a deduction of Rs' 1,500 (towards Item No. 5) is warranted' Thus, for the reasons discussed above, the amount of Rs 14,900, as assessed by the learned Special Judge, is incorrect, and the correct amount of Rs 13,400 is added. 46 Item No. 11 - Cash of Rs 64,56O: According to the prosecution, during the course of the house search, a total of Rs 64,560 in cash was found, and the particr.tlars of this recovery are recorded in ExP47, the inventory list' The prosecution added Rs 64,560 under this item'

47. The appellalt contended that this cash belonged exclusively to hiswife,whoisaresourcefulindividualwithindependentincome.It wasfurtherarguedthatthewifehadsoldpropertythatsheinherited from her father and had engaged in land dealings, and therefore' the cash recovered should be treated as her personal asset and not be added to the assets of the appellant'

48. The learned Special Judge took note of the appellant's submission and remarked that if the income of the appellant',s wife was to be considered during the assessment, then this cash amount might be treated as one of the appellant's assets' Accordingly' the learned Special Judge added the amount to the appellant's assets' 20 stating that the contention would be examined durir.rg the income discussion part of the judgment

49. PW35 depor;ed that the cash was found in the mar;ter bedroom,s cupboard-.Rs; (i.1,500 in a velvet handbag-and sorne additional amount in an alrnirah, totalling Rs 64,56O. As per ExT,4T, it is clear that the bulk o1- the cash, around Rs 64,500, was for.Lnd inside the velvet handba g.

50. Although P\V39, during cross-exarnination, denied that the cash belonged to the vuife of the appellant, it is signihcant to note that he admitted the wi1'e had independent income and hacl disposed of approximatell' 1 5 acres of land, which she had inherited from her father and jointll' owned with her sister during the check period. 51 . Nevertherless , even if the cash is craimed to b,erong to the appeliant's wife, since the income of the wife will, in a,y case, be added to the inc.-ne of the appeliant, this asset should ,lso be added to the assets of th,r appellant.

52. Moreover, the prosecution has failed to include the value of additional amounts found in the appellant's house under this item: . Rs 863 foun<i in the almirah located in the master bedroom. o Rs 3,720 found in the wallet of the appellant. . Rs 700 founcl in the wa]le t of the appellant,s son. 21 . Rs 210 found in the purse of the appellant's daughter'

53. The above-mentioned amounts, totalling Rs 5,493' are also included under this amount. Thus, for the reasons discussed above, the amount of Rs 64,560, as assessed by the learned Special Judge' is incorrect, and the correct amount of Rs 70,053 (Rs 64,560 + Rs 5'493) is added.

54. Item No. L2 -Loans and Advan ces worth Rs 31,976: The prosecution's case is that during the course of the house search, a long notebook in the handwriting of the appellant was found' recording the salaries of the farm servants' According to this notebook, the appellant had advanced loans totalling Rs 3 1'976 to variousindividua]s.Thesamebookalsocontainsentriesofvarious expenditures incurred on farm servants' This notebook was marked as Ex.P82.

55. The appellant contends that this amount of Rs 31'976 was arbitrarily added to the value of his assets based solely on entries in ExP82, which was a book seized from his house' It was argued that none of the entries in ExP82 were in the handwriting of the appellant' and that no independent proof was produced to substantiate the claim that the appellant had actually advanced these loans'

56. The learned Special Judge, however, held that as per the entries in the long notebook, which was stated' to be in the handwriting of the 22 appellant, th. appellant had advanced loans to vario.rs individuals and incurred expenses related to the salaries and rreeds of farrn servants, with th: total amounting to Rs 31,976. The k:arned Special Judge further noled that since the book was recovered fi-om the house of the appellan1., it was incumbent upon him to explain who the author of the conr.ents was, if it was not him. 57. ExPB2 is a long notebook seized from the house of the appellant. It contains inforrnation about the loans advanced by the appellant totalling Rs 31.!)76 to various individuals. The sanre book a-lso contains entrles r;f various expenditures incurred on frrrm servants. once the appellzrnt claims that he had agricurtural income, the expenditure incurred on farm servants is inevitable. sirrce this court has consider:ed ttLe income claimed by the appellant orr the basis of both the annual property statements filed by the appellant, which are marked as Ex:r P113 to Pl20, and the fact that there wa:; suppression of a made-up file at Seriar No. 21 of the list of doc,rnents-which consisted of rece ipts and bills relating to the sale of paddy and vegetables, bil1s issued by Adarsh Farmer Cooperati,,.e Society, Ap state Seed .DeveL;pment corporation, and the Agricultural Market Committee, Hyderabad, etc.-as admitted by pWs 37 and 39, the entries in ExP82 have to be accepted in their entirety. 23

58. The failure to rely on the entries in the document would contradict the claim of the appellant that he was having agricultural income,asmentionedinExsPl13toPl20.Thus,thefindingofthe learned. Special Judge under this item needs no interference'

59. Iterr No. 13 - Stamp Receipt of Rs 2OOO: ItisthecaseoftheprosecutionthatonestarnpreceiptforRs 2OOO was found d.uring the course of searches, and the same was markedasExP83.AccordingtoPW3g,Investigatingofficer,the appellant purchased land admeas uring !'22 acres at Erra Cheruvu of Podur village of Medchal Mandal' During the search' one stamped receipt for Rs 3OOO dated 25.9' 1972 was seized, which shows that one Anaji Reddy received al amount of Rs 10OO from the appellant towards the advalce for this land. Similarly, another Rs 2 stamped paper executed in favour of the appellant dated 25'9'1972 was seized' which shows that Anaji Reddy regeive! the remaining payment of Rs 1OO0 from the appellant. Subsequently, the land was registered in favour of the appellant vide sale deed No' 115 dated 8'5'1973 under ExP83. As such, an amount of Rs 2000 was added to the assets'

60. It is the contention of the appellalt that a partition deed was received on behalf of the joint family property' and the amount of Rs 2OOO was paid by his father for the said land' 24

61. The learnec. Special Judge stated that according to the appellant, the property was purchas ed in 1973 and Expg3 is the: agreement of sale. It contains that out of the Rs 2ooo sale consideratirrn, an amount of Rs 1000 was paid on 25.9.1972 through a receipt, a;rd the balance amount of Rs 10'10 was agreed to be paid on the date of execution of the registerecl sale deed. The learned Speciai Judge rLoted that the transaction was t:ntered into by the appellant independ ently and it is within the check period. There is no evidence before the court that the appellant executed the registered sale deed for the property and got the balance amo,nt. Therefore, the learned Speciar Ju dge added an amount of only Rs; 10O0 to the assets of the appellant.

62. PW39, in hi,; c1ss5-"*^mination, denied the sugges;tion that this item was purchas;ed by the father of the appeliant out of the Hindu Undivided F:rmi11. Fund, as contended by the appeliant.

63. trxP9O - the partition deed - is an agreement for trre partition of joint family propr'rties. However, it onry dears with tht: tractor and trailer and not rrith the purchase of any land, and there is no connection between Exs p83 and 90. 64' ExP83 shows that one Anaji Reddy received an amo,nt of Rs 10o0 from the app,sllart towards the advance for this 1ar.d. And since there is no evidenr:e to show that, in addition to paying Rs 1000, the 25 appellant paid another 1OOO to Anaji Reddy, the learned Special Judge has rightly added Rs 1000 to the assets of the appellant' Thus, the finding of the learned Special Judge under this item needs no interference. 65. Item No. 15 - Promissory Notes executed in favour of the appellant: It is the prosecution's case that during the house search, a few promissory notes executed in favour of the appellalt by various persons were seized. The promissory notes include: dated 4'5' 1983 executed by Tipaiah for Rs 3,800; dated 29.4.1987 executed by Masireddy for Rs 1,O00; dated 12.4.L99O executed by Narsimha for Rs 1,O00; dated 1.I.1982 by Yadaiah for Rs 5,000; and dated 12'6'1987 executed by Narsi Reddy for Rs 2,000. Thus, an amount of Rs 12,800 was added to the assets of the appellant.

66. It is the contention of the appellant that Rs 12,800 was added to the assets without any basis, and that PW39 admitted he has not examined anybody related to the said promissory notes, which refer to the years 1982 onwards.

67. The learned Special Judge added an amount of Rs 11,800 (3,800 + 1,000 + 5,00O + 2,OOO) to the assets of the appellant, since ExP86 was found not to belong to the appellant, as it was not executed in favour of the appellant. The learned Special Judge considered the 26 defence that no evidence was adduced in proof of these documents and stated :hat it is for the appeliant to establish the lact that these documents seized from his custody do not belong to him ExP85 is ex,:cuted in favour of the appellant for Rs 3,80O. ExPB6 is nct executed in favour of the appellant but is executed in favour of Maisi Reddy for Rs 1,000 ExP87 i:; ex,:cuted in favour of the appellant for Rs 1,000. ExP88 is; ex,:cuted in favour of the appellant for Rs 5,000. ExP89 is exr:cuted in favour of the appellant for Rs 2,00O.

68. Besides denial, the appellant has not prove<l that these promissory notes were not executed in his favour. The k:arned Special Judge has rightl,, stated that it is for the appellant to prove that ExP85 and Exs F'87 to P89, which were seized from his custody, do not belong to hirn. Thus, the hnding of the learned tipecial Judge under this itern rrr:eds no interference.

69. Item No. 16 -Towards Purchase of Tractor Trailer: According to the prosecution's case, during the house search, an agreement of joint family propert5r partnership deed--Exp9o-was seized. It states that the father of the appellant had purchased the tractor trailer in his name by obtaining a loan from SBH through Adarsha Cooperat.ive Society, Podur village , in L9T7 . Later, he sold 27 this vehicle to the appellant and his brother, Yaji Reddy, with a stipulation that the remaining instalments of Rs 1,02,554.27 wete to be paid by the appellant and his brother equally. As such, an amount of Rs 51,227 fell to the share of the appellant.

70. It is the contention of the appellalt that the tractor was purchased by his father by obtaining a loan from SBH, and this is evidenced by ExP9O. By the time the father transferred the tractor to the appellant and his brother, arr amount of Rs 67,327 was due to the bank as per the partition deed ExP9O. It is submitted that the appellant never used the tractor and never paid the instalments.

71. The learned Special Judge stated that, in fact, the appellant and his brother purchased the tractor and trailer at a cost equal to the outstanding balalce of the loan amount payable on the date of the said purchase and added the amount of Rs 5I,227 to the assets of the appellant.

72. As per ExP9O, the agreement between the appellant's father and the appellant and his brother stipulates that the appellant and his brother agreed to pay: Rs 19,OOO, which the appellant's father had already paid; Rs 16,227, towards two instalments of loan amounts; and Rs 67,327, towards the balance of twelve instalments' The total comes to Rs 1,02,554. Since the appellant and his brother agreed to jointly pay the amount of Rs 1,02,554, the learned Special Judge has 28 rightly addecl hal: of Rs 1,02,554, which is Rs 5i,227, trr the assets of the appellant.

73. It is tl.re rl,:fence of the appellant that he has not paid any amount tor,r,ards the tractor, artd PW39, in his cross;-examination, stated that he, has not verihed the existence of the tractlrr and has not verified whc lraid the 1oan. However, the appellant har; not adduced any evidence through his brother or anyone else to :;how that his brother paid the entire amount or that someone else d.id. He has not even examined h.s brother to prove that the appellant is not the one who paid this amount. Thus, the finding of the learned Special Judge under this it.em treeds no interference.

74. In light of the above discussion, the total amount of assets as determined brr this Court, when compared to the amounts calculated by the prosecutio.e, the defence, and the special learnecl Special Judge in the lower court, are tabulated as under: S.No. Description Assets Amount Calculated by Prosecution (in Rsf Amount Calculated Defence (in Rsl Amount Determined by this Court lia Rs) Amount Determined Special Learned Special J'udge in the L,ower Court (in Rsf 1 Item No. 1 : Appellant constructed house bearing No. 3-5- 18,48,517 16,50,000 16,50,000 16,50,000 29 1,13,000 Nil 1,13,000 Nil 86,484 86,484 86,484 86,484 t,68,740 t,68,740 L,6a,740 r,68,740 23,3LO 23,3ro 23,310 23,310 ree lAle7, Narayanguda, in narne, including the cost of the plot. Item No. 2: Appellant constructed house bearing No. 4-1-124, situated Attapur. Item No. 3: Appellant purchased house bearing No.5- B2|F3|FF at BarkathPura. Item No. Marrthi bearing no. F 9600. 4: Car AP9 Item No. 5: Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing No. AP 9 L 1529. Item No. 6: Bank 97,900.28 95,607 97,900.28 97,900.28 Balances. Item No. 7: Investments appellalt \Mith private chits and finances. t,o3,425 1,O3,425 t,o3,425 r,o3,425 2 AJ 4 5 6 7 8 Item No. 8: Bank D osits 10,000 10,o00 10,000 10,ooo i 30 Item No. 9: Cost 1,47 ,O3O articles. Household 54,000 I,47,O3Q Rs 1,14,980 Item No. 10: Cost of Goid and Silver Articles. 44,600 Iwit 14,900 13,400 t1 64,560 64,560 64,560 70,053 31,976 t2: 2,000 Nil Nii 31,976 31,976 1,000 1,O00 15,000 Nil 7,500 7,500 r 2,800 Nil 11,800 11, 800 :;7,227 Nil 51,227 51,227 9

10. i1 72

13. 14 i5. 16 Item No Cash Item No Loans Advances Item No. appellant purchased admeasuring 1.22 acres Yellacherul.u Pudur Village Ia:nd Item No. 74-. Appellant purchased and admeasuring l.2O acres at Pudur Village. Item No. 15: Promissory notr:s executed favour of the appellant. Item No. 1(i: Appellant's share in purchase of Tractor bearin 31 NO. AP F 5461 and APF 5462. TOTAL 28,2O,569.28 22,56,126.OO 25,82,852.28 24,41,795.28 INCOME:

75. The following disputed items are discussed below: Item No. 1- Net Salarie d Income of the Appellant: The prosecution's case is that the appellant worked as a government servant in various capacities from 1967 to 29'3'1997 ' After the concerned. officers furnished the pay particulars of the appellant from the date of entry into service to the date of the search' the computation was made, alld it was found that the appellant received an amount of Rs 7,28,000 towards his pay and other allowances, and the szune was added by the prosecution under this item.

76. The appellant contends that the total salary drawn by him is Rs 8,46,607. He argues that the salar5r drawn by him from 7'll'1977 to i.4.1985 and from 1.11'1985 to 31'5'1986 were not taken into consideration. He further contends that the pay particulars for these periods were not included in Exs P 11 and 12' which contain the salarSr particulars of the appellant' The appellant also claims that the salary particulars from 7'll'1977 to 28'2'1979 and from 1'3'1980 to 2a.2.1982 are missing, which establishes that r:ertain salary particulars rvere not provided to the police by the de partment. The counsel also .relie d upon the evidence of pw9, who adnritted that the salary partic,larr; do not contain the leave encashment amount and the particulzrrs of loans drawn by the appellant. 77 ' The learne<l special Judge stated that when the appeliant disputes his averrrge salary for the missing period as assessed by the prosecution, he ought to have substantiated the said aspect by adducing evid,:nct:, either in the form of oral or documentary evidence. The learned special Judge further stated that the appr:llant did not explain how he assessed his salary for the missing periocl.s, despite not having any partic,lars of the same in his custody. on the other hand, the learned Speci: Judge stated that pW39, the invest Lgating officer (IO), testified that the average pay drawn particuiars fo: the missing period were take. into consideration. Thus, the iearned iipecia-l Judge concluded that Rs 7,2A,OOO should be considered as tfLe appellant,s net salaried income.

78. As seen from the documents,Expl l discloses the p.y particulars for the period frorn 1.S.1985 to 31.1O.1985; 1.6.1986 to 37.S.l9gT; 7'6'1987 to 31.s.1990; and r.6.1990 to 6.4.1991. Further, Expr2 discloses the pa1. particulars of the appellant for the period from 1.3.1979 to 28.2.1980; 1.3.1982 to 30.4.1985; and 1 .11.1985 to 33

31.5.1986. ExP13 discloses the salary particulars for the period from l.5.lgg7 to 18.6.1997 and frorn 27'lO'I997 to 31'5'1998' while ExP14 contains the pay particulars for the period from 1'4'1991 to 5.6.1gg5. ExP15(a) contains the particulars of the appellant's period of working, place of work, and the post in which the appellant worked frorn 1.2.1968 until 2I.5.1997. ExP15(b) is the last pay certificate, and ExP15(c)showsthepayandallowancesfroml'6.|995to30.4.|997. The prosecution's case is that the evidence on record discloses the appellant's net salaried income of Rs 7,28,000' 79 . In ExP 1 1 , it is mentioned that the pay particulars of the appellant ftorn 7.Il.lg77 to l'4'L985 and from 1'11'1985 to 3l.5.1986werenotavailable.lnExPl2,itismentionedthatthepay particulars from 7.71.1977 to 28'2'1979 and from l'3'1982 to 28.2.1ga2 were not available in the office' PW39' the IO' admitted that, as per exhibits 11, 13, and 15(c), the salary particulars for some periods were not made available, as mentioned in the exhibits' Thrs was also admitted bY PW9.

80. The appellant contends that, considering the salaries for the missing periods mentioned in Exs P1 I and P12, the total salary drawn by him would come to Rs 8,46,607' However, the appellant has not submitted any evidence to support his contention regarding how he arrived at the figure of Rs 8,46,607' 34 8 1 . It is not the case that the salary for those pe riods was not considered by the prosecution, because PW39 statecl that for the missing penods, average pay drawn particulars we.re taken into account.

82. Moreover, 1tr trxPl1, it is also mentioned that the appellant was asked to come to the office to trace the missing records. The appellant has not provided any evidence showing that, even thoulJh the records of salary particui:Lrs for the missing periods were availatrle, these were not submitted by the prosecution or were suppre:ssed by the prosecution.

83. The appella,t further contends that the salary particuiars do not contain the li:ave encashment amount and the particr ars of loans drawn by hjm., but this argument cannot be accepted. Though pW9 admitted that Exr; P1l and Pl2 do not mention the encashment of earned leave a,nd the particulars of any loans taken by rhe appellant, the appellant has not provided any evidence showing that records of leave encashr.en t and loan particulars were available but were not included in the final settlement.

84. The learned speciar Judge rightry dismissed the appellant,s contention ancl determined the net salaried income of th<: appelant to 35 beRsT,28,OO0.Thus,thefindingofthelearnedSpecialJudgeunder this item needs no interference.

85. Item No. 3- Loan of Rs 8O,OOO from Sunita Finance Corporation: The prosecution's case is that during the house search, the RC Book of a Maruti car was seized. It shows that the car is in the name of the appellant's wife. The investigation revealed that the appellant obtained a loan from M/s. Sunita Finance corporation and purchased the Maruti car from Mitra Agencies. Accordingly, Sunita Finance Corporation sent a letter informing that the appellant's wife was sanctioned a loan of Rs 80,000 for purchasing the said car' Thus' the appellant received an amount of Rs 80,000, and he same was added by the prosecution to the income of the appellant' The appellant's contention is that this amount was borrowed by his wife and should not have been tagged to his income.

36.ThelearnedSpecialJudgestatedthatsincethecarpurchasedin the name of the appellant's wife was already considered and treated as an asset of the appellant, the amount of Rs 8O,O0O was tagged to the appellant's income under this item.

87. In assets, the item no. 4, the Maruti car, which was purchased by the appellalt's wife in her name by taking a loan from M/s' Sunita 36 Finance Corporation, was treated ald tagged as an asset of the appeilant, in ligh1 of the Iinding that the wife's income w-ill be added to the appellant's irLcome. Therefore, the hnding of the learned Special Judge under this item needs no interference.

88. Item No. 4 Rental Income of the Appellant: The prosecu.tion's case is that the rental income rr:ceived by the appellant amoun--s to Rs 1,00,00O. During the house search of the appellant, a few tenants were found residing in the hotLse on the 1st and 2nd floors. Subsequently, PWs IZ and 18 lvere examined. According to the information furnished by the two tenants, the appellant receiveci a total amount of Rs 1 lath in rent orr the terminal date of the check period, and the sarrte was added by the prosecution to the income of the appellant.

89. The appellaat's contention is that item Nos. 1 rend 3 of the assets, which rlre a house and flat, respectively, were givc:n on rent. He submitted the property statement on 20.3.1997. According to the statements fiied blr him, his rental income received is Rs 2,57,500.

90. The learnecl special Judge stated that there was no evidence before the colrrt to show when these statements were received by the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad, from the appellant. Based ,n this, the learned Specia-r Judge he td that these annual property statements were submitted by the appellant 37 subsequent to the date of the searches. The learned Special Judge also stated that the burden was on the appellant to establish whether he derived any lawful income subsequent to the year 1988, and that the property statements submitted by the appellant, which were submitted subsequent to the date of the search, for the period from 1989-1990 to 1995-1996, also did not contain the particulars of the rental income derived by the appellant. Thus, the learned Special Judge did not tag this item-rental income at Rs 1,0O,000, as assessed by the prosecution-to the income schedule' 91. According to the appellant, item Nos' 1 and 3 of the assets' which are a house at Narayanguda and a flat at Barkatpura, respectively, were given on rent, and he received rental income from these properties. He has also shown the rental income from these properties in his annual property statements' The annual property statements of the appellant are marked as Exs P114 to P120 for the years1990-1996,ar.Ld'thesameweresubmittedbytheappellanton

20.3.1997.

92.PW39'sevidenceclearlystatesthatinExsPll4toPl2O'tlre appellant intimated the rental income in his property statements to the department. Moreover, appellalt had submitted his annual property statement only for the period 1990-1996 on 20'3'1997' as per the letter from the Director and Commissioner of Agriculture' AP' HYD, vide his letter no. Estt' Vl1(4\617 197 dated 24'6'1997 ' 38 Additionalll'. on lixhibits Exs Pl13 to P12O, the appellant has put his signature and zLlso mentioned the date as 20.3.1997 under his signature, as adnritted by PW39.

93. From lhe above evidence, it is clear that the appellant had submitted his annual property statements to the department on

20.3.1997. Ir: cannot be said that the appellant had filed his statements sr-rbsequent to the search conducted by the inspectors. The search warrants were issued on 22.3.1997 , and thi: search was conducted at the appeliant's residence on 23.3.1997.

94. Though the date of submission of the anr rual property statements is only three days prior to the search, r,r,hich raises a doubt, it is n,ct tJre prosecution's case that the appellalt deliberately filed the statements after becoming aware of the registration of the FIR.

95. Considering the evidence of the annual property statements, it should be mentioned that these statements were not disputed by the prosecution el.the:: during the investigation or before tht: court. Thus, the same *'il-t be assessed to determine the rental i^come of the appellant.

96. The prosecurion examined pws 17 and rg, who wer-e the tenants in the house at llarayanguda (marked as item No. 1 irL assets). The 39 defence examined DWs 1 to 3 to prove that they were tenants in the house at Narayalguda, and DWs 4 and 5 were tenants in the flat of the appellant in the Housing Board Colony, Barkatpura (marked as item No. 3 in assets). However, no documentary evidence was filed by any of these witnesses, and there is only oral evidence.

97. The only documentary evidence available is the statement filed by the appellant, marked as Exs P114 to Pl2O-ln Exs P114 toPl2O' the appellant's rental income is from two assets: one from his house at Narayanguda alld the second from his flat at Barkatpura' Further, the explanation to Section 13(1)(e) defines the expression "known sources of income" alld states that this expression means income received from arry lawful source. It also requires that the receipt should have been intimated by the public servant in accordance with any provisions of law, rules, or orders applicable to a public servalt. so, as per the explanation to Section 13(1)(e), if the appellant has intimated the receipt of income in accordance with the law or provisions applicable, the same will be considered under known sources of rncome.

98.Theevidenceshowsthattheappellanthasintimatedthe department, as is clear from Ex P113, regarding the rental income from the house and the flat. Thus, the same can be considered' 40 In Exs Pl13 to E 120, the renta-l income values of the appelialt from these two ass,:ts lbr the period 1990 to 7996 are extracted beiow: Relevant Exhibits years and Relevant property Rental income from property (per annum) 1990 (ExP11a) Flat at Barkatpura 7,200 1991 (ExP115) Flat at Barkatpura 7,200 1992 (ExPl16) Flat at Barkatpura 8,400 i993 (trxP117) Flat at Barkatpura 8,400 1994 (ExP118) 1995 (ExP1l9) 1996 (ExP120) House Narayalguda Flat at Barkatpura 14,400 9,600 House Narayanguda Flat at Barkatpura House Narayalguda Flat at Barkatpura 18,000 (F'irst floor) + 18,000 (st:cond floor) t2,oo0 30,000 (First floor) + 24,OOO (second floor) 74,400 Total- L,7L,6OO

99. Considering the value of rental income from the an.nual property statements, E.xs I)1 14-120, the rental income of the apltellant comes to Rs 1 ,7 1 ,60Ct. Eiefore tagging this item of rental income as Rs I ,7l,600 to the income of the appellant, two things need to be considered: 41 i) Firsfly, it is the evidence of PW39 that his investigation disclosed that, as per the documentary evidence collected, the appellant did not obtain prior permission from the department for acquiring movable and immovable properties in his name and the names of his family members, as per the APCS Conduct Rules' According to the APCS Conduct Rules, the appellant was required to give intimation to the Government before acquiring immovable properties. Both the houses from which the appellal1t was receiving rental income were acquired by the appellant. However, the fact that the appellant has submitted his annual property statements, Exs p113 to P121, shows that he has intimated the department about his properties. ii) Secondly, according to PW39, the appellant did not show his income in the income tax returns' However, PW24 spoke about the property tax paid by the appellant for his house at Narayanguda (item No. f -in assets), and Ex P31 has been marked to show the tax paid' According to PW24, the annual renta-l value was Rs I2,OOO, ald the taxca-rnetoRs3,500peryear,andtheappellantpaidthesaidtaxup to3l.3.lggT.Further,PW24alsodeposedthesameforthehouse/flat at Barkatpura, stating that the annua-l rental value of the house was Rs 6,600 and the yearly tax came to Rs 1,888, and the appellant paid the property tax. Nevertheless, the non-frling of income tax returns showing rental income will not disregard the rental income specified in 42 the alnual property statements. Such returns r.," ould not by themselves establish that the income was from a 1av, ful source as contemplated in the Explanation to Section 13 (1)(e) ol the PC Act, 1988, and inclependent evidence would be required to a3count for the salne Thus, 1n tight of the above discussion and crinsidering the annual propert)- statements of the appellant, the a mount of Rs I,7l,600 is added under this item to the income of the altpellant. 1OO. Item No. 8 .Income from Sale of Land and Properties: It is the ,:ase of the prosecution that during the hcuse search, a will deed executed by the father-in-law of the appellar.Lt was seized. According to the .vill deed, marked as ExP91, the fathe:-in-1aw of the appellant me::rtio.aed that the following assets were to be shared equally between his daughters:

1. Plot no. t2 1 e.dmeasuring 250 square yards.

2. House No. 2 44 and 2-44 /1 at Attapur.

3. 600 squ.rre 'zards plot at Attapur, 4. 0.35 acres irr Sy. No. 27 and 33 of Attapur village.

5. Sy. No. 28 ar:d 29 Land of 71 guntas and 6 guntas.

6. Sy. No. 1Ot], 109, and 110 at Nandi Musalal,zLguda Village admeasu.rinSl 2 acres, 90.5 guntas, and 1.5 guntas.

7. Sy. No. 10ti, 109, and 110 at Nandi Musalavzrguda village admeasuring; 2 acres,90.5 guntas, ald 1.5 guntas. 43

8. Rs 1,59,000 sale proceeds of land at Katta Kindi Bhoomi' l0l.AccordingtoPW3g,thewifeoftheappellantreceivedan amount of Rs 1,59,0OO from her father. Additionally, the appellant receivedRsl,5o,00oasthesaleconsiderationforlandsituatedat Nandi Musalayaguda village. Half of the sale consideration' Rs 75'000' falls to the share of the wife of the appellant'

102. As per the agreement of sale dated 13'03'1990' the appellant agreed to sell land in survey no' 106 admeasuring 2'700 square yards situated at Attapur to one Sri Krishna Reddy for a consideration of Rs 2,3O,OOO. This amount was equally distributed between the wife of the appellant and her sister. An amount of Rs 1,50'000 was received as income by the wife of the appellant' Thus' according to the prosecution, the appellant received Rs 3 ,49,OOO as income from the saleproceedsofthelandsofhisfather-in-lawonbehalfofhiswife. However., the prosecution contended that the income of Rs 3'49'0OO was not shown in the property statements submitted by the appellant and, as such, cannot be consid'ered as income of the appellant'

103. The learned Special Judge has wrongly taken the value assessed by the prosecution under this item as Rs' 4'84'0OO' instead of the correct amount of Rs. 3,49,000/-' 44 IO4. The appellrnt contended that an amount of Rs 1ii,g4,575 must be added under '-his item ald examined DWs 13 to 16, marking Exs D4 to D51 an.d I)53 to D11i, which are copies of sale deeds, to prove his claim

105. The learned Special Judge considered the evicrence of DWs 13 to 18 and Exs Dr4, 6, 4l to 111, 113, and 114, which are copies of saie deeds. The lezLrned Special Judge only considered the in<;ome from the sale considertrtio. of lands under Exs D4r to D45, ext:cuted by the wife of the appellant prior to 19gg, which totaled Rs 11,500. The learned Special -udge observed that the sale deeds executed after 1988 cannot tre <:rnsidered as income of the appelrant siace they were not declared by him in accordance with Rule 9 of the Ap CS (Conduct) Rules, couplecl wir.h section 13(r)(e) of the pA Act. The 1e arned speciar Judge statecl that the burden is on the appeflant to s,bmit annua-r property statements, including agricultural income deri'ed, which he had not dont-.. He,ce, only the amount of Rs 11,5O0 was added under this item by the leirned Special Judge.

106. The Hon'ble SC in Stcte of T.N. tt. R. Soundirarasu, (20231 6 SCC 768: 202|2 SCC Online SC 1150, discussed the mt:aning of the explanation to Sec':ion 13(1)(e) of the pC Act: "34. Se,ction l3(1)(e) of the 198g Act including Expl,anation .. thereto reads a.s ur..d.er: 45 -*iti " 73. Crininal tnisconduct bg a pubtic serooLrrt -(1) A public seruant is said to comtnit the offence of criminol misconduct- tpl if he or anu Person on his behalf, is in possession or ha,s' ot ong time duing 'rn" i1"aA"n!- oli",., b".n in possession/or uhich the public seruant cannot ";;;"f".t ;lu occiunt,' of pecuiiary resources or propertg disproportionate to his knotun sou rces of iname. n*pinotion.-for tize purposes of this section' "known sources of income" iiois in"o* receiuei Tiom any la uful source and such receipt hos been tn""proaiions of ang latu, rules or orders for the iiniiit"i in accordance time being appticable to a public seruant' 35. The Explanation to Section 13(1)(e) defines the.expression "knoun sources receiued from ang ii i"i.^";'Zia states thrit this expression me.a ns lnttfrtl source and- also r"qui,i" tiat the receipt slnuld haue been intimated bg ;i#;;;;;';;;;":tl" i"oii"""" uith ans provisions of tau' nttes or orders for the time being applicable to a public seruant' 36. The Explanation to Section 13(1)(e) of the 1.988 Act has the effect of intome" used in Section 13(1)(e) of ;;i;rs "ou'"t"'of the 1988 Act. Tl'Le nrptoniiiin to Sectioi 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act consists of tu)o parts. The first part states ttat the knoutn sources of income means the suc.h 1i""'*" ,"*i""i Troi ong ti"liut "r;;;; s.eruont in accordance uith 'r;'"";;;;;; .i tout, rutes iii o'aui 7* tie time beins appticabte to a pubtic t";;"i tou" Ir""i i"iiatea bg the -pubtic and the-.second part states 'that tii i*pr"ttion "l,"ii" .the .income "ou'"" seruant."

107. The above observation by the SC clearly shows that the receipt of income should have been intimated by the public servant in accordance with the provisions of the law, rules, and orders for the time being applicable to a public servant'

108. This brings us to the A'P'C'S' (Conduct) Rules' 1964' which is the relevant act applicable to the appellant' Sub-Rule 7 of Rule 9 of the Conduct Rules reads as follows: "(7) Euery Gouernment Emplogee, other than a m-ember of the Andhra Pradeslt t o,t C'ia" i'-;" @nd a Record Assistant in the -;;;i;" Pradesh Gent'ai iub-ordinate Seruice' shall' onfrst appointment' a statement of oll to the Gouern*.nt S"-i"t, submit to th'e .Gouem.ment immouable propertg/prJliit", iot"p""tiue of its ualue' and mouable t*"i"at Rs' 50'oo0/ - owned' acquired' propertg/ prope*ies wroIJ' morlgage either in hi's o.wn '-otut or inherited bg him or n;a Lg him on lease of hi-s famila, in the forms prescribed. name or in the name.f "iiiiin"r ' He inon itto submit to the Gouemment in Annentre-I ana n "tpiiatelg ^or 46 before 15 Janua4l of each gear, through the proper channel, a d-eclaration in the forms git'e:n in Annexure-I ana i of all immouat.tle/ moua.ble propertg/ prop<:rti<::; outned, acquired., or inheited_ bg him o, ,4eid. tg iii on le,ase or m.ortq age, either in his ouLn name or in tne n,rme oi aig . of his I amilg. The declaration shall contain s,rch fufthJr member information a:; the Gouernment mau, bg a general or special'order, re.quire. If irL anu Aeor, ? Gouernment empligee has noi acquired. - disposed 6f ar',g intmouable or mouoble p-p"ig or ang intet.esi therein, he shall submit a declaration to that effe&."

109. Annexu;:e i is the Statement of immovable property possessed, acquired, and disposed of by Sri or any other person on his behalf or an], mernber of his family during the year endirrg - as per Sub-rule (7) of Rule 9 of ApCS (Conduct) Rules 1 964. 1 10 From tire above, it is crear that the appenant was required to submit his annual property statement as per Annexure I to show his income from the clisposal of properties in his name or irr the name of any other person on his behalf or any member of his famrly.

111. Considering the explanation to Section 13(1)(e), only the income which has been irtimated by the public servant in acc crdance with the provisior.s of the 1aw can be considered under .knorx,n sources of income'. Hence, tL.e appella.t,s income from the sale of lands will be considered only if it has been intimated by him under Siub_ru le T of Rule 9

112. Appellant har; examined DWs 13 to 16 and marked Exs D4 to D51 and DS3 r_o irl1l to prove his contention that his income from 47 thesaleoflandsisRsl5,84,5T5.However,theappellanthasnotfrled any documentary evidence to show that he intimated the department regarding his income from the sale of lands' Thus, only the income from the sale of lands prior to 1988 can be considered to determine theincomeunderthisitem,asrightlyobservedbytheSpecialLearned Special Judge.

113. Out of Exs D4 to D51 and D53 to D111, Exs D15' D2O' D2l' D22,D26,D2T,D3S,andD3garethecopiesofsaledeedsexecuted by the appellant. .ExDlswasexecrttedinlg8l,forasaleconsiderationofRs 3,00G . ExD20 was executed in 198 1 , for a sale consideration of Rs 6,O00 . ExD2L was executed in -1981, for a sale consideration of Rs 3,000 . F;xD22 was executed in 1981, for a sale consideration of Rs 3,O00 . FlxD26 was execute d' in 1982, for a sale consideration of Rs 6,000 . ExD38 was executed in 1982, for a sale consideration of Rs 5,600 48 . ExD39 was executed in 1982, for a sale consid.eration of Rs 1,500

114. The above sale deeds were executed by the appellant prior to the year 1988. tr.",en though the appellant has not filed arLy evidence to show that the income from the sale of the above lands ,,vas intimated to the department, these can be considered as they are prior to the introduction of th,: explanation to Section 13(1)(e) of the ;\ct 198g. 1 1 5. Though the appellant is required to intimate the income from these sale deeds tr the department as per Rule 9 of the ,apcs conduct Rules, since thesr: are rules, the consequence of violatir Lg these rules would be departmental action, and a violation of the same cannot be a ground to re-ject r:onsidering the income from the above sale deeds, given the serious,ess of the consequences attached to th<: punishment for a person founcl to have assets disproportionate to thr:ir sources of lncome

116. Thus, in liglrt of the above discussion, al amount of Rs 28, 1O0 is added as income from the saie of lands as mentioned in Exs D15, D2O, D2l, D2.2, Lt26, D27, D38, and D39. The following sale deeds were executed by the appellant as the GpA holder on behalf of his sister-in-law: Flxs D5, D6, D8, D9, Dl6, DLZ, D24, D2i;, D2g, D2g, D30, D31, D46, Dt7, D48, D49, D50, and D51. 49 llT.Theincomefromthesesaledeedscannotbeconsideredasthe income of the appellant, as they were executed on behalf of the appellant's sister-in-law' Hence, these documents will not be considered to determine the income of the appellant'

118. The following sale deeds were executed prior to 1988: .F,xDTwasexecutedbytheappellantastheGPAholderonbehalf of his wife and sister-in-law in the yeat 1986 for a sale consideration of Rs 15,000. o ExD10 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on beha]fofhiswifeintheyearlg8oforasaleconsiderationofRs 3,OOO. o ExDll was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behatfofhiswifeintheyearlg8oforasaleconsiderationofRs 3,OOO- . ExDl2 was executed by the app9Jt4lt as the GPA holder on behalfofhiswifeintheyearlg8oforasaleconsiderationofRs 9,000. . ExD13 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife in the year 1981 for a sale consideration of Rs 4,500. 50 ExD 14 war; executed by the appellant as the (ipA holder on behalf of h:s wife in the year 1981 for a sale consideration of Rs 4,500. a ExD 1 B wasi executed by the appellant as the (ipA holder on behall'of his wife in the year 1980 for a saie cons.Lderation of Rs 3,000 trxD 19 wa s executed by the appellalt as the CipA holder on behalf of his wife in the year 1981 for a sale consideration of Rs 2,175. a trxD23 was executed by the appellant as the CpA hold.er on behalf of hir; wife in the year 19g1 for a sale consideration of Rs 3,000. o ExD34. was executed by the appellant as the GpA holder on beha-lf of his; wife in the year 1982 for a sale consirleration of Rs 3,000. a trxD3 5 ,,r/as executed by the appeilant as the G pA holder on behalf ol his wife in the year l9g2 for a sale consi<leration of Rs 3,000. ExD3 6 rvas executed by the appellant as the Gl)A holder on beha]f of his wife in the year r9g2 for a sare consicteration of Rs 3,000. 51 . ExD37 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalfofhiswifeintheyear]rgS2forasaleconsiderationofRs 3,000. . ExD40 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife in the year 1982 for a sale consideration of Rs 3,000. . ExD4l was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife in the year 1982 for a sale consideration of Rs 3,000. . Ii;xD42 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife in the year 1982 fot a sale consideration of Rs 3,000. . ExD43 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on beha,lf of his wife in the year 1983 for a sale consideration of Rs 5,000. o ExD44 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife in the year 1982 for a sale consideration of Rs 4,500. o ExD45 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife in the year 1982 for a sale consideration of Rs 2,500.

119. Since the above sale deeds were executed prior to 1988 and they were executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife ' 52 the income f.orn these sale deeds will be added to the income of the appellant, since the income of the wife of the appellant is added to the income of the app ellant.

120. Further - E*')7 was executed by the appelrant as a ripA holder on behalf of his wif. and sister-in-law. Here, half of Rs r 5,oo0 will be considerecl to'warrls the income of the wife of the appel.lant since the sa-le was o. beh a-lf of both the wife and the sister- in-law of the appellant. Th,s, rrn amount of Rs 7,500 will be consid,:red from the sale under ExD7. Thus, an amount of Rs 22,67s wilr b. added to the income of the arrpellant from the sale of the rands i n the above- mentioned sa1,: deeds. I27 . The sale deeds, ExD4 and Exs D52 to D 1 1 1, n.ere executed subsequent to 19118. Hence, they cannot be consiclered to determine the income of the apperlant in right of Rule 9 of the Apcs conduct Rules coupled with Section 13(1)(e), 19gg. Therefore, for.the reasons discussed above, the amount of Rs 11,500, as assessed by the learned Special Judge, is i,correct, a,d the correct amount of Rs 1,00,775 (Rs 28, 100 + 72,6i'5) ir; added.

122. Item No. 9 - Agricultura I Income: The case of l.he prosecution is that the Director of Agriculture, Medchal, fur,ishecl the statements showing the year_wise crops sown, acres and nor.mal yietd of different crops, total yield, rates and 53 prevailing total income, cost of cultivation of different crops, total expenditure, and net income, which is marked as ExP121. It shows the year-wise crop sown. ExP122 is the statement containing market rates of various agricultural produce from the year 1980-81 to 1994-

95. As per ExP121, the Assistant Director has shown that the appellant's wife received a net agricultural income of Rs 76,000 for lands situated at Attapur, and an amount of Rs 89,232 was received by the appellant for lands situated at Pudur village. Thus, according to the prosecution, the appellant received a total amount of Rs 1,65,832, and this amount was added to the income of the appellant.

123. T}re contention of the appellant is that Rs 34,95,862 has to be taken as income from agriculture. In addition to relying on income mentioned in the annual property statements, the appellant has examined DWs 7, 8, 11, and 12 to prove his claim. L24. Tlne learned Special Judge, relying upon ExP121, tagged this item of agricultural income of the appellant as assessed by the prosecution to a tune of Rs 1,65,832 in the income schedule.

125. PW4O is the witness who furnished ExP121 along with the statement showing the year-wise crop sown in the land of the appellant. According to him, he went through the records provided by the ACB offlrce, i.e., the pahanie* tentative yield of paddy and maize, 54 and the prevaili.ng market rate of the crops providerl by the AD, Marketing. Basing on the above records, he preparecl trxP121. He mentioned the year, Survey No., crop cultivated as per MRO records, acres and lne [d carticulars, total yield in kgs, rate and total amount, approximate cost. of cultivation in Rs, total expendit.ure, and net lncome The total amount is Rs 1,56,682, the total exp,:nditure is Rs 67,45O, and the ret income is Rs 82,232.

126. The evidence of PW40 shows that he computed the figures based on the materj.al supplied by the ACB officials. He did r-rot personally ascertain the hgures; the ACB provided the materials fr-om the MRO, and based on tha-, he furnished ExPl2l 127 . trxPl2l gir.es the following information: it shows the year, the Survey Numbers, the crops cultivated as per MRO recorcls, acres, total yreld in kgs, rnarket rates per quintal, total amount, approxrmate cost of cultivation, totril expenditure, and net income. ExPl2) contains the market rates of agricultural commodities for the years 1980-81 to 1994-95. The pr<rsecution has relied only upon ExP121 to calculate the appellant'rs ag ricultural income.

128. The appelle.nt has relied upon Exs PIl4-l2O to prove his agricultural. inconre from 1990-1997, and he has examined DWs 7, 8, 11, aled 72. The learned Special Judge disregarded the evidence of 55 these witnesses mainly on the ground that there was no documentaqr evidence. 12g. However, PW37 stated that during the course of the search of the appellant's house, a made-up file at Seriat No' 21 of the list of documents was seized. It consisted of receipts and bills relating to the sale of paddy and vegetables, bills issued by Adarsh Farmer Cooperative Society, AP State Seed Development Corporation' and the Agricultural Market Committee, Hyderabad, etc' He has not investigated the said bills in the made-up file. PW39 also admitted that made-up file Document No' 22 seized during the search contained a carbon copy of the bill' It contains receipts regarding the sale of vegetables by the appellant' 13O. It is clear that though the prosecution seized the above documents, the same have not been f,rled by them and appear to have been suppressed.

131. According to Section 11a(g) of the Indian Evidence Act' "(g) that euidence tuhich could be and is not produced tttould, if produced, be unfauourable to the person uho tuitltholds it'" t32. Since the prosecution has suppressed facts' an adverse inference is drawn, and the agricultural income as mentioned in the annual property statements frled by the appellant will be considered' 56 Exs P 1 14-721) djsclose the agricultural income for thr: years 1990_

1997. PW39 also admitted that, as per Exs plI4-12O, the appeliant furnished his agricultural income to his department.

133. As per ltrxs Pl74-r2o, the agricultural income of the appella,t for the periorl 1990-1997 comes to Rs 16,50,000. I'o assess the agricultural incorne of the appellant prior to 1990, trxp121 can be considered, along with the evidence of the defence witnesses. However, the appellant's crntention is that in Expr22, the mi,Lrket rates of paddy and o,a.ize are not mentioned. According to pw40. he furnished ExP 1 2 1 solel.yz based on the information provided by the ACB inspector. rf ExP122 did not contain the market rates of paddy and maize, it is q,estionable how pw4o arrived at the ma :ket rates for these crops t.o cal<:ulate the net income in Exp121- This is particularly signifrcant beca.,se ExP121 mentions that it was based on the prevailing market rates provided by the inspector. r34 PW41 ztnd PW39 admitted that there is no mentio;r of paddy or maize in ExPll22.

135. For this, thr: defence examined DWIZ, the Seni'r Marketing Assistant in the Oflice of the Commissioner and Director of Agricultural Mrerke ting. He produced the attested copy o1-the support prices fi-xed by' th,: Government of India for agricurtura r crops from 1983-1984 to t-99ii-1999, marked as ExD1r2. ExD112 al,so shows the 57 price of maizs andl paddy per quintal set by the government. However, in ExDl12, the prices fixed by the government for agricultura-l crops are from the year 1983. Upon comparing ExD112 and ExP121, the prices of rrraize arrd paddy are higher in ExP121. Hence, ExP121 can be considered to determine the agricultural income prior to 1990, for the years 1980-1984 and 1985-1990. Though the defence has also examined DWs 7, B, 11, and 12, they have not produced any documentary evidence.

136. As per ExPl2l, the net income for the years 1980-al' 1987-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1985-86, L986-87, 1987-88, 1989-90 is as follows: Rs 10BO; 4l3O + 16O0; 4880 + l2O;60O + 3000; 3OOO + 79L2; 650 + 56O0; 930 + 48OO; 1485 - tota-ling Rs 39,787' Thus, the total agricultural income of the appellant comes to Rs 16,50,966 + Rs 39,787 = Rs 16,89,787. For the reasons discussed above, the amount of Rs 1,65,832, as assessed by the learned Special Judge, is incorrect, and the correct amount of Rs 16,89,787 is added' 137 . In light of the above discussion, the total amount of income as determined by this court, when compared to the amounts calculated by the prosecution, the defence, and the social learned Special Judge in the lower court, are tabulated as under: S.No. Description Itlcome of A.mount Calculated bY Prosecution lin Rsl AErount Calculated by the Defence (ia Rsf AEount Determiaed bY Special Learned Special J AEroutrt Determined bY this Court lin Rsl 58 in the Lower Court (in Rs) I ) .1 4 5 6 7 8 9 i) Item No. 1: Net Salaried Income 7 ,24,OOO 8,46,607 7 ,28,OOO 7,28,OOO Item No: 2'. Lr:an 1,00,O00 from Aryan Cc.op I Housing Limited 1,00,000 1,00,00t) 1,00,000 Item No. 3: Loan Surrita Finance Corporation 80,000 80,ooo 80,000 80,000 Item No. 4: Rerrtal Income 1,00,000 7,57 ,500 Nil t,7 \,600 Item No Interest FDRs Item Income Chits No 6: fr,om Item No. 7 : Interest from SB Accounts Item No. 8: Income from SaIe Proceeds 16,100 16,100 16, 100 16,100 3,53,950 3,53,950 3,53,950 3,53,950 2,261.80 2,26L.80 2,26r.80 2,26r.aO 3,49,000 15,84,575 1 i,500 r,oo,775 Item No. Agricultural Income 9 1,65,832 34,95,862 i,65,832 16,89,787 Amounts withdrawn from GPF of appellant Additional lncome 2,O2,OOO 2,O2,OOO 2,O2,OOO TOTAL 18,95,143.9O 74,56,856.OO 15,59,643.8O 34,44,473.8O

138. The total e:mount of income, as calculated b1. the Special Learned Special .tudge, is Rs. 17,09,611.g0, which is incorrect. The 59 correct calculation of the total amount, based on the values of the items under income reflected in column No. 5 (Amount Determined by the Special Learned Specia-l Judge in the Lower Court) of the above table, is Rs. 16,59,643.80 and not Rs 17,O9,611.8O. EXPENDITURE

139. The following disputed items are discussed below: Item No. 1 - Household Erpenditure: The case of the prosecution is that during the course of the investigation, PW42, the Dy. Director, Accounts, ACB, Hyderabad, calculated the family expenditure of the appellant during the check period by adopting the scientific method, i.e., CSO data, and he arrived at the expenditure of Rs. 2,67,292.30 and the same is added to the expenditure of the appellant. The relevant document is ExP61. 14O. The contention of the appellant is that his sister-in-law used to supply rice, milk, vegetables, etc., and after deducting the same, the household.expenditure should have been considered at Rs. 1,50;OO0 instead of Rs. 2,67,292.

141. The learned Special Judge stated that the appellant did not dispute the item-wise expenditure as assessed by PW42 and observed that, in the absence of any contradicting evidence to that of PW42, he added Rs. 2,67,292.30 under this item to the expenditure of the appellant. 60 I42. PW42, the then Dy. Director of Accounts, deposed that he computed the household expenditure of the appellant for the check period from 1 .2.I)68 to 23.3.1997 and furnished ExP61, showing the value of householC expenditure as Rs. 2,67,292.30, as per the Central Statistical Org;anir;ation information. 143 . trxP6 1 sho ,vs the household expenditure inct trred by the appellant. Th,: appellant is not contesting the values arrived at by PW42 in ExP6 1. IIis contention is that his sister-in-law r-rsed to supply milk, vegeta b les . etc. , and the same should be deducted from the household expencliture. However, it was already discussr:d that DW19, the sister-in-1a'",,,., deposed that she resides in the A.ttapur house (which is Item No. 2 in the assets), and the appellant resides in the house at Narayanguda (which is Item No- 1 in the assets). Even according to PWli9, DW19 is living in the house at A-tapur vi11age. ExP47 was conducted at the house in Narayanguda (whr ch is Item No. 1); hence, it caenot be accepted that DW19 was incurring the expenditure Ibr the supply of milk, vegetables, etc. Further, no document has bt:en furnished by the appellant to prc)ve his claim- Therefore, the corLtention of the appellant cannot be accepted. Hence, the fi.nding o1' thr: learned Special Judge under this i1.em needs no interference

144. Item No. 5 - Propert y Taxes paid to MCH: 61 The prosecutiont case is that during the course of the investigation, the Dy. Commissioner sent a letter mentioning the paJrment of Municipa-l taxes in respect of the houses bearing No. 3-5- L99 lA/7, Narayanguda, and house bearing No.3-4-86416' Barakatpura, respectively. As per the said letters, which are marked as Exs P31 and P32, the appellant paid an amount of Rs. 17,500 and Rs. 34,000 towards property taxes for the above houses.

145. Similarly, the Commissioner, Rajendranagar Municipality, sent a letter informing that the appellant paid an amount of Rs' 5,592 towards house tax for the house bearing No.4-1-124, Attapur during the check period. Thus, according to the prosecution, the appellant paid an amount of Rs. 57,092 as house tax, and the said amount was added to the total expenditure of the appellalt.

146. The contention of the appellant is that, out of the total amount of Rs. 57,092, al amount of Rs. 5,592 relating to the Attapur house should be deducted, as his sister-in-1aw, DW19, has paid the taxes for the Attapur house and she is in possession of the receipts'

147. The learned Special Judge, relying upon the evidence of PWs 2, 24, 1g,39, coupled with Exs P2,P21a1,23,24,31, and 32, favoured the prosecution version and added an amount of Rs' 57,092 under this item to the total expenditure of the appellant. 62

148. As per the t:vidence of PW24, ExP31, furnishing the property tax paid by the appellant, shows that the house bearing No. 3-5-199/A/7, Narayangud a. stzrnds in the name of the appellant, that the annual rentaL value of lhe house was Rs. 72,OOO, which was effective from 1992, and the ta:r comes to Rs. 3,500 per year, and the appellant paid tax up to 31 l].1997. Further, ExP32, furnishing the pr<.,perty tax paid by the appellant, shows that the house bearing Nc. 3-4-86416, Barkatpura. star.ds in the name of the appellant, thrlt the alnual rentai value cf the house was Rs. 6,600, which was effective from I .4.1978, anrl rhe tax comes to Rs. 1,888.92 per r/ear, and the appellant pa1cl tax up to 31.3. 1997

149. The appelkrnt has not disputed that he paid an amount of Rs. 17,500 and Rs. :4,000 towards propert5r taxes for the above houses. His contention rs; that the tax for the house bearing No. 4-1-124, Attapur, was paicl by his sister-inlaw. For this claim, t.ee evidence of PWs 2, 19, and DW19 is relevant.

150. AccordirLg to PW2, ExP2 letter dated 22-5-2001, lurnishing the details of the hcuse bearing No. 4- 1- 124, Attapur, u,as issued by Srinivas Reddy Commissioner, Municipatity, Rajendranagar. It mentions that the said house was standing in the name of the appellant and that ExP2(a) was the certifrcate issued showing that the income tax was 1>aid by the appellant up to March 1!)99, and that 63 subsequently, the house tax for this house was also paid until 2OO4-

151. In his cross, he also stated that the said property stands in the name of the appellant from 1989-90, that the property tax was assessed from 1989-90, and that the house tax was paid in the name of the appellart. i52.Pw19deposedthatExP24,letterdated2.9.|ggT,furnishingthe particulars about the house bearing No' 4-1-124, Attapur' was issued by Siva Shankar Rao, Commissioner, Municipality' Rajendranagar' It mentions that the property tax assessment was given for the said house in the year 1989-90 and the annual rental value was fixed at Rs. 2,138. That the property tax was revised during the year 1991- 1992 arrd, was enforced w.e.f' 1'10'1993' That the house has been in the name of the appellant since 1989' That the property tax was paid up- to 1995-96 and subsequently, the app,ellant also paid tax up to 2004-o5

153. The evidence of PWs 2 and' 19, coupled with Exs P2' P2(al' and P24, is clear with respect to the house bearing No' 4-1-124' Attapur' standing in the name of the appellant and that the appellant was payrng the tax, b4

154. Though D\ r 19, the appellant,s sister-in-law, is residing in the house bearing No. 4-1-124, Attapur, which is also spoken to by pW39, and DW19 deposed that she is in possession of the ta:: receipts paid for the house a1_ Attapur, she hasn,t frled those receipts to show in whose name the, tax was paid. Further, though she denied the suggestion that she is not paying any taxes for the said house, besides her denial and oral evidence, no documentary proof has been filed by either the appellant or DW19 to show that it was, in far:t, DW19 who was paying the tax for the house bearing No. 4_1_124, Attapur. In the absence of a,'g such proof, and in light of the evidence iiled on record by the prosecuti,n, it is apparent that it was the appellant who was payrng the tax for the house bearing No. 4l_124, Attapur. Thus, the finding of the learned Speciar Judge under this item needs no interference.

155. Item No. 8 - Life tax paid on Maruthi car: It is the case of ,he prosecution that the Assistant Se cretar5r, RTA, sent a letter. trrP6, informing that the appellant paid Rs g,750 towards life tax and Rs 5O towards registration fee on 7.6.1994. As such, an amount .f Rs 8,800 should be added to the total expenditure of the appellalt. 65

156. The contention of the appellant is that this expenditure of Rs 8,800 relates to the wife of the appellant and must be deleted from the total expenditure.

157. The learned Special Judge, by stating that since the Maruthi car, item no. 4 in assets, was tagged to the assets of the appellant, added Rs 8,800 under this item to the total expenditure of the appellant.

165. The appellant is not disputing the quantum paid towards the lile tax of the Maruthi car bearing no. AP 9 F 9600, and his contention is that the said amount was paid by his wife and has already been included in the assets of the appellant.

158. The claim of the appellant that an amount of Rs 8,800 under this item needs to be deleted since it is the expenditure of his wife cannot be accepted, since the income of the appellalt's wife is added to the appellant's income, ald her expenditure will also be included in his expenditure.

159. However, the amount of Rs 8,750 towards life tax has already been added under item no. 4 in assets, i.e., to the value of the Maruthi car. Hence, the same cannot be added again under this item. Only an amount of Rs 50 towards registration fee is added under this item, since it was not explicitly stated that an amount of Rs 50 was added in 66 addition to lis B,?'50 under item no. 4 in assets. Thus, frrr the reasons discussed abc,ve. the amount of Rs 8,8O0, as assessed by the learned Special Judge, is incorrect, and the correct amount of Rs 5O is added.

160. Item No. 9 - Insurance paid towards car bearing No. AP 9 F 9600: It is the czLse of the prosecution that the Manzrger, National Insurance Compe,ny, informed that the wife of the appr:llant paid Rs 6,530 towards; tht: insuralce of the vehicle during the check period. As such, an amorrnt of Rs 6,530 was added to the total expe:nditure of the appellant.

161. The appellant's contention is that the expenditur,: of Rs 6,530 under this item rr:lates to his wife and must be deleted

162. The learned Special Judge stated that the amount of expenditure is not in dispute, and since it stands in the name of t.he rvile of the appellant, he t-agged Rs 6,530 to the expenditure of the appellant.

163. PW29 deposed that ExP37 is the letter furnished by the Branch Manager of th.e Tarnaka Branch of the National Insurance Company, which contains the details of the policy taken and renerved by the wife of the appellant frr vehicle no. AP 9 F 9600. It is not in dispute that the amount of Rs 6,53O was paid by the wife of the appellant. 67

164. Since the income of the wife of the appellant is tagged to the income of the appellant, the expenditure of the wife of the appellant will also be added to the total expenditure. Hence, the finding of the learned Special Judge under this item needs no interference.

165. Item No. 11 - Life tax paid for scooter bearing AP 9 L 1529: It is the case of the prosecution that, as per the letter of the Assistant Secretar5r, RTA, Hyderabad, an amount of Rs 1,910 and Rs 45 were paid towards life tax and registration fees. As such, an a-rnount of Rs 1,955 was added.

166. The learned Special Judge added an amount of Rs 1,955 under this item to the total expenditure of the appellant'

167. The contention of the appellant is that the amount of Rs 1,955 was already included under item no. 5 in assets towards the value of thq Bajaj Scooter and hence must be excluded from exp,enditure under this item. 168. Under item no. 5 of the assets, a life tax of Rs 1,910 and a registration fee of Rs 45 were included in the cost of the vehicle to determine the value of item no. 5 in assets. Hence, it cannot be included again under this item. Thus, the value of this item, i'e', Rs l,g55,asassessedbythelearnedSpecialJudge,isexcludedfrom consideration. 68

169. Item No. 12 - Expenditure incurred towards LPG: It is the p rosecution's case that Mukund Enter:prises sent a letter informing that one LPG gas connection No. 74822 was allotted to the appellalt on 18,8.1990, and that the appellant paid Rs 1,669.4O towards the p;as ,lonnection, refills, etc. As such, this amount should be added to the e.<penditure of the appellant.

170. The iearned. Special Judge accordingly added an amount of Rs 1,669.40 to the total expenditure of the appellant. The contention of the appellant is teat this amount is already covered uncler item no. 1, i.e., househoid expenditure, ald hence Rs I,669.4O should be deleted under this it.em.

171. PW39, in his cross-examination, admitted that this item is covered under horrsehold expenditure

172. Since PiV39, the IO's evidence is clear that an amount of Rs 1,669.40, incurrt:d towards LPG, was included in tl.re household expenditure. it crinnot be added again under this itenr. Hence, the value of this item, i.e., Rs 1,669.4O, as assessed by the le,arned Special Judge, is exclude<i from consideration. 69

173. Item No. 13: Expenditure on Telephone: The case of the prosecution is that during the course of the investigation, the accounts ofEcer, Hyderabad telecom district, sent letters informing that the appellant had one telephone No. 243773 at his portion and another No. 3223773 in the same premises. The letter, ExP33, mentioned that the appellant paid an amount of Rs 8,789 and Rs 33,759 towards rental charges for the said telephones by depositing Rs 1,00O each. According to the prosecution, the appellant paid Rs 44,048 towards the telephone installed in his house; as such, this amount was added to the expenditure of the appellant. 17 4 . The contention of the appellant is that even at the time of inspection, telephone number 243773 was in the premises of a tenant, and the amount of Rs 8,879 was incurred by the appellant, while the rest of ,the amount was paid by the tenant. The appellant examined DW3 to prove his claim.

175. The learned Special Judge disbelieved the evidence of DW3 and added an amount of Rs 44,048 to the expenditure of the appellant.

183. PW25 deposed that ExP33 is the letter furnished by the then Accounts offrcer, containing the details of the installation of telephone no. 243773 and the particulars of the amounts paid towards the installation charges, enclosing the payment history. The said telephone was sanctioned in the name of the appellalt, at the 70 residence of 3 5-199/.4/7, 2nd Floor, Narayanguda. The installation date was in 1'195, and an amount of Rs 1,000 was deposited towards the advance ren ta-l deposit. According to PW2 5, the payment for telephone bills; from 1.3.1995 to 7.7.1997 was Rs 10,085

176. Further, PW25 also deposed that trxP33(a) furnishe:d information regarding teiephone no. 241724 and the amount deposited towards the deposit chargr:s, also enclosing the payment history particulars. As per ExP33 (a), th: said telephone was issued in the name of the appellant, at H. .\o. 3-5-199/A/7, Ground Floor, Nara yanguda. The subscriber paid em amount of Rs 1,00O towards the advance rental deposit, ancl he caid the telephone bill from 1.7.1992 to 1.7.1997, totalling Rs :2€i,958.

177. Under ExP33, an amount of t1O,O85 was pairi as telephone charges, in acldition to {1,00O deposited towards the advance rental deposit. Under Ex.P33(a), an amount of 726,958 was paitl as telephone charges, along u'ith t 1,000 deposited towards the a<lvance rental deposit. Thus, the total expenditure under this item amounts to <39,043, as per ttLe evidence of PW25, and not <44,O48 as assessed by the prosecution. 77a. h is DWll's evidence that he was a tenant in the house at H. No. 3-5-199/A/7, 2n<l Floor, tuorr, 6/92 to 3/97. He also stated that he used to pay rhe telephone charges. 71

179. lt is not disputed that there were tenants staying at H. No. 3-5- lgg/A/7, Narayanguda, as PW39 also stated that during the search of the appellant's house, a few tenants were found residing on the lst and 2nd floors. Further, Exs P113 to P120 also show that the appellant received rental income from this house'

180. DW3's evidence shows that he was residing on the 2nd Floor of the appellant's house, and as per ExP33, telephone no. 243773 was sanctioned in the name of the appellant, at the residence of 3-5- 199 lA/7,2nd Floor, NaraYanguda.

181. Though ExP33 shows that the telephone number was salctioned in the name of the appellant, it does not show the particulars of who paid the amount. Further, even PW39 admitted that, in the inventory at the time of the search of the appellant's house, only one telephone was found and mentioned'

782. Though PW39 added that the other telephone, which is in the name of the appellant, is in the portion of the tenants and is also maintained by the appellant, no receipts, etc., have been filed to show that ttre appellant was palT ng the charges for the telephone on the 2nd Floor.

183. Though DW3 has also not filed any documentary proof to show that he paid the telephone charges, the evidence is clear that 72 telephone no. 241i773 was placed on the 2nd Floor of thc: house, ald it is clear that therr: were tenants residing on the 2nd F1oor, as admitted by PW39 as vrell. There is no reason why the appeliant would pay the telephone charge:; of the tenants.

184. In light of the above discussion, an amount of Rs 10,085, which was paid for thr: telephone bills of telephone no. 2.13723 at the residence of 3-5- I 99 /A/7, 2nd Floor, Narayanguda, is ck:ducted under this item frorrL tht: amount of Rs 39,043. The amount of Rs 1,000 paid towards the advance rental deposit is not deducted as DW3 did not depose that lLe paid such advance. Thus, for the reasons discussed above, the arroulrt of Rs 44,048, as assessed by the learned Special Judge, is inr:orrect, and the correct amount of Rs 2B,95Fi (Rs 39,043 - Rs 10,085) is adcl,:d.

185. Item No. 15- Expenditure on Scooter: The prosectrtion's case is that the assistant brartch manager, Oriental Insuran,:e, sent a letter informing that thc: son of the appellant has pai,I Rs 351 towards the insurance of the. scooter, and hence, this a-rrLourrt of Rs 351 was added under this item. 186. The lezrrne.d Special Judge added this amount to the expenditure of the appellant on the ground that th<: son of the appellant has .no i ndependent income. 73

187. The evidence of PW27 is clear that ExP35 was issued by the assistant branch manager of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, furnishing the details of the motorcycle policy of engine no. 46398, and that the son of the appellant, Sripal Reddy, is the policyholder. It was also stated that the son of the appellant paid an amount of Rs 351 towards the premium of the insurance. It is admitted that the son of the appellalt is dependent on him and has no independent income. Hence, the Iinding of the learned Special Judge under this item needs no interference.

188. Item No. 16- Electricity Consumption Charges: It is the case of the prosecution that during the house search, it was found that an electricity connection was given to the house of the appellant, bearing House No. 3-199/A/7, Narayanguda. The Assistant Accounts Officer, APSEB, Hyderabad, sent a letter informing that House No. 3-199/A f 7, Narayanguda, was allotted to consumer SC Nos. F3-3134, 3135, 3736, 3137, and 3138. Consurner No' F3-3134 was allotted to the ground floor where the appellant resides. As such, the electricity consumption charges in respect of the said portion were taken into account. An amount of Rs 6351 was paid for the said portion towards electricity consumption charges, and thus, this amount was added to the expenditure of the appellant' 74

189. The contention of the appellant is that this amor-rnt is covered by household erpenditure. The learned Special Judgr: rejected the claim of the appr:llant and added Rs 6351 to the expenditure of the appellant under this item.

190. PW39, in h.is cross-examination, admitted that Iterrr No. 16, i.e., Electricity C,rnsumption Charges, is covered in tlre household expenditure.

191. In light of the IO/PW39's admission, the value of this item, i.e., Rs 6351, as erssessed by the learned Special Judge, is r:xcluded from consideration

192. Item No. 17: Subscription towards LIC premia: It is th.e case of the prosecution that during the hcuse searches, receipts pertainir g to bonds Nos. 640727 502 and 64(t229O89 were seized, which were in the name of the appeliant and his wife. As per the said dor:uments, the appellant paid al amount of ,Rs 84,752 for the said policres. .lurther, some old premium receipts of LIC policy No. 38483034 u.e.:e also seized, and as per these receipts, the appellant insured his lile rvith LIC for a yearly premium of Rs 2, t52.S0 for 15 years, for Rs 30,000, on 15.4.1975. The appellant inir:ially paid an amount of Rs 32,287.50 towards premiums during the check period. Thus, the appe,lant totally paid Rs 1,17,039.50 toward.s LIC premiums, a.nd ar; such, this amount is added to the expenditure of 75 the appellant. The prosecution examined PW38 and marked Exs P76, P77 , P95, and P96 under this item.

193. The contention of the appellant is that out of the amount of Rs I,17,O3!.5O, an amount of Rs 32,287 was paid to the appellant towards Maturity Policy No. 38483834, and the same has to be deducted from the exPenditure. Lg4. The learned Special Judge, relying on the evidence of PW38, coupled with Exs P76, P77, P95, and P96, stated that the appellant paid the amount of Rs 1,17,039'50 towards LIC premiums' The learned Special Judge also observed that no evidence was adduced by the appellant to Prove his claim.

195. PW38, an LIC agent, deposed that the wife of the appellant is the policyholder of.LIC with Poticy No. 640727502. The policy commenced from December 1994. The sum assured was Rs 2,OO,OO0, and the premium was fixed at Rs 14,594 yearly. Further, PW38 stated that in theyearlgg4,atthetimeoftakingthepolicy,i'e',on28'12'1994'an amountofRs3,5O2waspaidbythepolicyholder,andforthenext year, i.e., in December 1995, the policyholder paid an amount of Rs 14,594 and also paid Rs 322 towards the late fee, totaling Rs 18,418. ExP76 is the receipt issued by the LIC. 76

196. ExPT 6 receipt shows that an amount of Rs 18,4113 was paid by the wife of the appellant for Policy No. 6+0727502 for l<\94 and 1995. ExP95 is the letter furnishing the details of Policies 6..0729089 and 640727502 in the names of the appellant and his wife, rr:spectively. As per ExP95, ttLe 1.ota1 premium paid on both policies by the appellant and his wift: is lls 84,752. ExP95 also shows that the premiums for both policies were paid up to November 1996 and December L996, respectively.

197. ExP96 contains the details of the policy held in the name of the appellant, v4.rich shows that the date of maturity was 28.12.2014. Further, ExP97 crrntains the details of the policy held in the name of the wife of the appellant, which shows that the date of maturit5r was I.11.2009.

198. trxP95, gives the details of the entire premium paid by the appellant and his wife for Policies 640729089 and 64C.t727502 from the year 199)4 un.:il 7996, and a tota_i of Rs 84,752 was paid towards both policies t,y ttre appellant and his wife. Exp96 covers the premium paid by the appellalt's wife under ExP76, so the amount under Exp76 is once agairL rrot r:onsidered.

199. The check pr:riod is from I.2.1968 to 23.3.1997. Exp95 contains the details o[ 1-he premium paid until December and November 1996. ExPg 6 shows 1.hat the appellant was required to pay Rs t 1,092 yearly 1'' on 28th December, since the policy commenced on 28.12.L99+, ExP97 shows that the wife of the appellant was required to pay Rs 8,194 yearly on lst November, since the policy commenced on 1.1 1. 1994.

200. From the above, it is clear that only ExP95 can be considered to calculate the expenditure of the appellant and his wife towards premiums on the policies, since the same contains details of premiums paid until 1996. As per ExP96, the next premium was to be paid on 28.12.1997, and as per ExP97, the next premium was to be paid on l.ll.7gg7. Hence, since both are subsequent to 23'3'1997, i.e., the end of the check period, the premium paid for lhe year 7997 cannot be considered.

201. Moreover, ExP94, LIC receipts shows that the appellant paid Rs 2,7g2.go, Rs 2,243, Rs 2,273, and Rs 2,152 towards LIC premium for Policy No. 38483034, amounting to a total of Rs 8,861'

202. Though the appellant claimed that Rs 32,287 was received by him towards the maturity of Policy No. 38483834, the same cannot be accepted, since the maturity amount received from LIC-as reflected in Expgg-has already been added to the income of the appeilant. Thus, for the reasons discussed above, the amount of Rs 1,17,039'50' as assessed. by the learned Special Judge, is incorrect, and the correct amount of Rs 93,613 (i.e., Rs 84,752 + Rs 8,861) is added' 78 2O3. Item No. 18 Subscription made bv aDDellant towards Private chits: The case oi the prosecution is that the appellan.t joined as a member of ,e ch:t vide Ticket No. 23 on 18.5.1994 with M/s Shashi Chit Funds. 'l-he duration of the chit was 25 months, and the value was Rs 2 lakhs. 'lhis chit was closed on 10.9.1995. It rs aleged that the appellar-'.t paitl Rs L,7L,474 towards the said chit aii instalments, as informed b'7 th,: manager of the chit fund.

204. Further, according to the prosecution, the appellant joined as a member of zr chit vide Ticket No. 25 on 24.4.7992. The value of this chit was Rs 1,00 O00 and the period was 25 months. 'lhe appellant paid Rs 85,292 towards the instalments of the sar<l chit up to

74.6.1993. As such, this amount was also added under this item. 2O5. It was further the case that the wife of the appellant joined as a member of chit Group No. 514, vide Ticket No. 1B on23 12.1995. The duration of thr: said chit was 20 months and the value o; the chit was Rs 50,000. 'l'he wife of the appellant paid Rs 34,O4O towards subscription up 1.r> 29.3.1997. As such, this amount was also added. Similariy, it rvas stated that the wife of the appellant joined as a member vide 'i'ickt:t No. 5 on 24.4.1992. The value of th<: chit was Rs 5o'o00 a,d the duration was 20 months. The wife of r-he appellant paid Rs 43,670 towards the subscription. The prosecution examined 79 PW14 and marked ExP18 under this item. Thus, the prosecution added a total of Rs 3,34,476 under this item to the tota-l expenditure of the appellant.

206. Tlne learned Special Judge, relying on the admission of PW39 in his cross-examination that an amount of Rs 1,71,474 and Rs 85,292 was already deducted from the chit bid amount and that the same has to be deleted from the expenditure under Item No. 18, added only an amount of Rs 77,710 (34,O4O + 43,670) under this item. 2O7. The contention of the appellant is that the amount of Rs 77,710 added by the trial court is erroneous and that the same has to be deleted. 2O8. ExP77 is the letter from Shashi Chit Funds furnishing the details of the chit groups joined by the appellant. ExPl8 is the letter from Hanuman Chit Funds furnishing the details of the chit groups joined by the appellant and his wife.

209. As per ExPlT: . The appellant was a member of Chit Group No. SA3, Ticket No' 23, and he has paid a total of Rs 1,71,474untrl29'3'1997' . The appellant was a member of Chit Group No. SB-1, Ticket No' 25, and. he has paid a total of Rs a5,292 unttl 29 '3 'L997 ' Thus, as per ExP17, a total of Rs 2,56,766 was paid towards the above chits by the aPPellant- 80

210. As per ExP18 The appellart's wife was a member of Chit Group lrlo. S14, Ticket No. 18, rencl she has paid a total of Rs 34,O40 tnt1l29.3.1997. The appellaet's wife was a member of Chit Group No. 58, Ticket No. 5, arrd she has paid a total of Rs 43,670 :untll 29.3.1997 Thus, as per DxP1B, a total of Rs 77,710 was pai<l towards the above chits .b1, tht: appellant and his wife. 2 1 1 . PW39 admi:ted in his cross-examination that the subscription amounts of Rs r 71,474 and Rs A5,292 were already <.leducted from the chit bid arnount, and as such, the same have to be e;<cluded under Item No. 18 towards expenditure. Hence, an amount of Rs 2,56,766 (Rs 1,71,47,1 + Rr;85,292) is deducted from Rs 3,34,475 assessed by the prosecutic,n. Ilence, the hnding of the iearned Special Judge under this item need.s no interference.

212. lterre No. 19- Expenditure incurred towards salaries of the servants: It is the casre of the prosecution that, as per the long register, ExP82, maintzrine C by the appellant and mentioning the rsalaries of the farm servants, an amount of Rs 1,39,839 was paid tovrards salaries during the ch,:ck period. As such, this amount was added under this item. 81

213. The fact that the contents of E;xPB2 can be relied upon in their entirety was already discussed under Item No. 12 of assets; therefore, Item No. 19 of expenditure has to be considered as claimed by the prosecution. Thus, the finding of the learned Special Judge under this item needs no interference. 2L4. ltem. No. 21- Payment to Sri K Bhaskar Reddv and Ors: It is the prosecution's case that during the searches, one agreement dalcd 7.4.7982 between the appellant's wife, his sister-in- law, ard mother-in-law, etc., marked as ExP99, was seized. As per this agreement, the appellant agreed to pay Rs 45,OOO to Bhaskar Reddy and others towards their family settlement. The appellant paid this amount on two occasions: Rs 10,000 and Rs 35,000. The expenditure of Rs 45,OOO was equally shared by the appellant's wife and his sister-in-law. An amount of Rs 22,5OO, the share of the appellant's wife, is added to the total expenditure of the appellant'

215. The learned Special Judge, relying on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, and that even according to the appellant, the amount was paid by his wife, added Rs 22,500 to the expenditure of the appellant.

216. Tlrlle appellant's contention is that the amount of Rs 22,5O0 was paid to Bhaskar Reddy by his wife and sister-in-1aw, and the same 82 cannot be taggerl to his expenditure. It was also contended that Bhaskar Recldy w,1s not examined. 2I7. ExP99 clear'Iy mentions that it is an agreement between the appellant's wile, his mother-in-1aw, and his sister-in-1aw. on one hald, and Kaveligrdern Venkatamma, Janga Reddy, Bhaskar Reddy, on the other hard, vrherein the appellant's wife, his mother-ir:.-law, and tris sister-in-law have agreed to pay Rs 45,0O0 to the other parties. Thus, it is clear tbat Rs 45,000 was paid by the appellant's rvife and sister- in-law.

218. Though, PW39, in his examination, has stated th,et he has not examined Bha-skar Reddy and others, the non-examinati,:n of Bhaskar Reddy and others, in light of ExP99, is of no consequenoe. Also, since the appeilant ha s admitted that his wife has paid the amount mentioned under ExP99.

219. Since the in'rome of the wife of the appellant is also added to the income of the appellant, an amount of Rs 45,000 is divided between the appellant's rvife and his sister-in-1aw. Thus, the finding of the learned Spec:ial JuLdge under this item needs no interference. 22O. ltem,No.22- Loan from Sunita Finance Corooration: It is the prosecution's case that during the course of investigation, Sunita Corporation sent a letter informing that the wife of the appellant repaid the loan of Rs 1,04,000 up to 8.7. 1995. As such, an amount of Rs 1,04,000 was added to the expenditure of the appellant.

221. Tine learned Special Judge stated that admittedly, the said loan was availed to purchase the Maruti car, which was in the name of the appellant's wife. Thus, he added an amount of Rs 1,04,O00 under this item to the expenditure of the appellant.

222. The contention of the appellant is that the loan under ExP73 was repaid by the wife of the appellant and hence, calnot be added to his expenditure.

223. ExP73 clearly shows that Rs 1,04,000 was paid by the wife of the appellant as repaJrrnent of the loan taken for the purchase of the Maruti car. since the income of the wife of the appellalt is included in the appellant's income, the appellant's wife's expenditure will also be included. Hence, the finding of the learned special Judge under this item needs no interference. 84

224. ltern No. 2 enditure towards spare perts: It is the prcsecution's case that during the search, Exs P106 to Pl11, which :rre rills pertaining to the purchase of spare parts, were seized. As per the sajd bills, the appellalt incurred an r:xpenditure of Rs 5338 towards spare parts and the servicing of Maruti Car No. AP 9 F 9600. As su.ch, this amount of Rs 5338 is added to the expenditure of the appellant

225. The lear-nec Special Judge, relying upon Exs P106 to P111, tagged an arnoun'- of Rs 5338 to the expenditure of the appellalt. The contention of the appellant is that no evidence was plar:ed before the court on this aspe ct.

226. ExPlO6 to ExPlll were seized during the srrarch of the appellant's house All these receipts are in the name of the appellant. Thus, it can.not tre said that these documents do not belong to the appellant or that the expenditure amount mentioned in the above bills/receipts 'was not incurred by the appellant. Hence, the hnding of the learned Specr:J Judge under this item needs no interl'erence.

227. ltera No, 24- Expenditure towards maintenance of vehicles: It is the case of the prosecution that during the investigation, it was revealed that the appellant was in possession of two vehicles, one Maruti car a-nd o::re Bajaj Scooter, since 1994. After considering the 85 maintenance costs calculated at an average of Rs 600 per month for the said car and scooter, an amount of Rs 18,OOO under this item rs added to the expenditure of the appellant'

228. The learned Special Judge stated that the maintenance expenditure assessed at Rs 6oo per month for both vehicles is very meagre and, in fact, less. Thus, the learned Special Judge added an amount of Rs 18,000 under this item to the expenditure of the appellant.

229. ln his cross-examination, PW39 admitted that he calculated the expenditure towards the maintenance of the vehicles solely on the basis of average expenditure. The prosecution failed to furnish any details of the vehicles, such as the number of kilometres run or any other relevant data, to substantiate the basis for considering the maintenance expenditure as Rs 600 per month. Hence, in the absence of any documentary proof and based purely on guesswork, the amount under this item cannot be added. Hence, the value of this item, i.e., Rs.l8,O0O,asassessedbythelearnedSpecialJudge,isexcluded from consideration.

230. In light of the above discussion, the total amount of expenditure as determined by this Court, when compared to the amounts B6 calculated by thr: prosecution, the defence, and the social learned Special Judp;e in the lower court, are tabulated as under S.No. Description Expenditure Amount Calculated by Prosecution (in Rs| Amount Calculated Defence (in Rs) Amount Determined by this Court (in Rsl Amount Determined Special Learned Special Judge in the L,ower Court (in Rsl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No Item Household Expenditure 12,67,292.30 1,50,000 2,67,292.30 2,67,292.30 2: 1,30,530 Item No. Repayment of lcan to Aryal Coop Housing Socierl- 1,30,530 1,30,530 1,30,530 Item No Educationa.l Expenditure 3: 1,12,550 1,12,550 1,12,550 1,12,550 4: Item No. Expenditure towards marrizrge of Smt. Anitha 50,o00 Nil Nll Nit Item No. 5: Property taxes paid to MCH 57,O92 51,500 57,092 Rs 57,092 Item No. 6: \\rzLter Consumption Charges Item No. 7: PaJment made to Harivihar Colony Welfare Associzrtion 9,958 2,445 2,145 2,445 5,OOO 5,000 s,000 5,000 Item No. 8: Lifr: llax Paid on Maruthi Car 8,800 8,800 8,800 50 Item No. 9: Insurance p,id towards car bearhg no.AP9F9600 6,530 6,530 6,5sO 6,530 10

11. 12

13. 74 15 16 t7 18

19. 20 2t. 87 5,675 2,675 2,675 2,675 1,955 1,955 1,955 |,699 Nil 1,699 Nil Nil Item No. 10: Registration fees and Stamp Duty Item No. 11: Life Tax Paid for Scooter bearing No. AP 9 L t529 12:. Item No. Expenditure incurred towards LPG Item No. Expenditure Telephone 44,O44 13: 23,644 44,O44 28,958 690 Ni1 Nil 690 351 6,351 690 351 Nil Item No. 14: Locker Rents 690 35r 15: t6 6,351 Item No. Expenditure Scooter Item No. Electricity Consumption Charges Item No. Subscription towards LIC Item No. Subscription tdwards Chits 19: Item No. Expenditure incurred towards salaries of servants Item No. 20: Expenditure incurred towards maintenalce of mother-in-law Item No. 2l: Pa5rment to Sri K Bhasker ReddY and Ors t7: 1,17,039.50 84,752 1,17,039.50 93,673 18 3,34,476 1,39,839 16,800 NiI Ni1 Nil 77 ,7 rO 77,770 1,39,839 Rs 1,39,839 Nil Nil 22,500 Nil 22,500 22,500

22. a') 24

25. Item No. 22: L,oan from Sinta Finemce Corporation Item No. 23 Expenditure towards spare parts 1,04,000 5,338 Item No. Expenditure towards maintenance vehicles 24 18,000 Item No. 25 9,062 Expenditure towards paymen t or premia to Nati,tr al 88 Ni1 Nil Nil 1,04,O00 i,04,000 5,338 5,338 18,000 Nil Nil Nil Ni1 TOTAL 14,75,575.9O 5,81,115.OO Ll,32,434.9O 1O,57,163.30 Thus, the following amounts of assets, income, and expenditure have been arrive<l at by this Court: Assets Income Expenditure Rs 24,41,795.28 Rs 34,44,473.8O Rs 1O,57,163.3O

231. By deductin3 the expenditure of Rs 10,57,i63.30 ;.rom the total income of Rs 34 44,473.80, the likely savings is Rs :23,87,310.50 Consequently, th: disproportionate assets, as calcul ated by this Court, are asr fbllo'vs: 89 Savings - Assets = Rs 23,87,3 10.50 - Rs 24,41,795.28-= Rs - 54,484.78. Thus, the disproportionate assets arrived at by this Court tota-l Rs 54,484.78. I \

232. ln M. Krishnrr Reddg a. Sto:te of A.P (1992 4 SCC 45l, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a Governinent memo allowing a margin of 2O'k on the income of a government servant while computing disproportionate assets cannot be laid down as a proposition of law

233. In B.C. Chatuntedi a. Union of India and Others (1995 6 SCC 749), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the principle of allowing a deduction beyond 1O% while calculating disproportionate assets of alr ofhcer would be undesirable and inappropriate-

234. Similarly, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Krishnonand Agnihotri a. State of M.P., lL977l 1 SCC 816, held that 10% of the disproportionate assets need to be deducted in arriving at the finding that the appellart had disproportionate assets.

235. The total income of the appellant, as determined by this Court, is Rs 34,44,473.80. Extending the benefrt of lO%o in calculating the disproportion, lOok of the income would be Rs 3,44,447 '38 (i'e', 1O% of Rs 34,44,473.80). Since the disproportion now computed is Rs 54,4A4.78, which is less than the lOYo deduction allowed by the 90 Hon'ble S uprenre Court in the aforementioned le arned Special Judgements, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

236. Accorrlinply, the Criminal Appeal is allowed //TRUE COPY/i One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Surender (For l{is Lordship kind perusal) SD/-K.:SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, t 2 3 4 1 The A,jditional Special Judge for SpE and ACB Cases, Cit,y Civil Court, Hyd e ra bad. (with records) Two CCs to the Publtc Prosecutor, State of Telangana, High Courl Buildings at Hyderabac [OUT] 11 LR Copie:; The Under Sr-.cretary, Union of lndia lvlinistry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs \lew l)elhi The St:creta17, Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, l-1igh Court Buildings at Hyderabad. One CC to Sri Koteswara Rao Mummaneni, Advocate [OpUC] Two CD Copies w b 7. HIGH COURT DATED:1610412025 L.R. copy to be marked JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1450 of 2009 1i{ t 1 u'?? q f, tO \!J Er; $h .rr(l 1': o .} .t- ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL. ^, ,oP% I &.'