..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2492 OF 2007 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Versus Bhanudas Bapusaheb Patale and Anr. ..Respondents. ... Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP, for the Applicant-State. ... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 17th June, 2008. DATED : 17th June, 2008. DATED : 17th June, 2008. P.C.: 1. The applicant-State of Maharashtra has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 19th April, 2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malshiras in Special Case No.3 of 2004. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted respondent No.1-orig.accused No.1 of the offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and acquitted respondent No.2-orig.accused No.2 of the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 109 of IPC. ..(2).. 2. The prosecution case is that the respondent No.1-orig.accused No.1 while working as Agricultural Assistant and Agricultural Supervisor in Maharashtra during the period from December 1984 to December 1995 acquired disproportionate assets worth Rs.11,55,975/- The said property of Rs.11,55,975/- is unaccounted and the accused could not give any explanation. According to the prosecution the income of accused No.1 from his monthly salary was Rs.3,95,997/- and his income from their agricultural land was Rs.2,62,907. After deducting the household expenses and other expenses the accused could have purchased the property worth Rs.4,88,625/-. However the property worth Rs.16,44,600/- was found with him. The case of the prosecution is that accused No.2 who is the wife of accused No.1 helped him to acquire such property. Hence they came to be prosecuted. 3. Heard the learned APP for the applicant-State. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge as well as the evidence which has been produced by the learned ..(3).. APP. 4. In the complaint, only two sources of income of respondent No.1-orig.accused No.1 are shown i.e. income from monthly salary and income from his ancestral agricultural land. The investigation in the present case has been carried by PW-6 P.I. Nimbalkar and PW-7 A.P.I. Bhat. PW-6 in his cross-examination has admitted that the accused No.1 is a member of his Hindu Joint family and that his family also earns its income from flour mill, chilly pounding machine and dairy business besides agricultural income. The income earned from these businesses was not taken into account in the income column of accused. PW-6 has also admitted in his cross examination that the accused had taken loan of Rs.3 lakh from Gulabrao Patil and Dattatray Bakale for purchasing agricultural land from Gautam Girme and that Gulabrao and Dattatray had given two demand drafts to the tune of Rs.1.5 lakh each. Infact these loan amounts were required to be taken in the income column of the accused, however it was not done. ..(4).. 5. During the investigation carried out by the witness No.6, it was found that the family of the accused received income of Rs.3,88,800/- out of its dairy business. It has also come on record that the accused had taken loan from the relatives and the total loan amount collectively come to Rs.5,52,000/-. These amounts were not taken into consideration by the prosecution. 6. In his evidence PW-7 A.P.I. Bhat has admitted that the amount received after selling gold by accused No.2 is not included in the income column of accused and that even the income earned from dairy business of the accused is not taken into account in the income column of accused, as well as the income from chilly pounding business and flour mill is also not taken into account in the income column of accused. Similarly even the loan amounts borrowed by the accused from various persons was not taken into account in the income column of the accused. In the investigation it was found that accused No.1 had received the amounts of Rs.53,182/- and Rs.17,985/- on the dates 30.11.1995 and 15.5.1995 towards sugarcane bill, but PW-7 A.P.I. Bhat has admitted that due ..(5).. to oversight he did not account said amounts in the income column of accused. 7. Considering all these aspects together, it was wrong to mention only two sources of income in the complaint. All the income sources of accused were not considered during investigations therefore after considering all sources of income and after deducting the amount of expenditure and considering the valuation of property possessed by the accused, it cannot be held that he was in possession of disproportionate assets. 8. Moreover, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that there is no compliance of Section 17 of the Act. The learned Sessions Judge has taken all the above aspects into consideration and thereafter he has acquitted the respondents-orig.accused. 9. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. ..(6).. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)