THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.779 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: 1 Questioning the judgment dated 11.12.2006 passed in C.C.No.3 of 1997 whereby the respondent herein who was tried for the offence punishable under section 13 (1) (e) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 by the learned Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases was acquitted of the said offence, the State represented by the Inspector of Police, ACB, Hyderabad range filed this appeal. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The respondent herein joined in Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board on 01.04.1970 as Store Assistant. He was subsequently promoted as Lineman on 01.04.1981 and he is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). On reliable information that the respondent is in possession of disproportionate assets to his known source of income, the Inspector of Police, ACB, Nalgonda registered a case against the respondent on 24.05.1994 and took up investigation. During the course of investigation the Inspector searched the residential premises of the respondent situated in Nalgonda and in L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District and the house of the son of the co-brother of the respondent simultaneously. During the course of searches, number of incriminating documents were seized, which disclose that the respondent had acquired movable and immovable properties in his name and in the names of his dependents to a tune of Rs.6,74,992/-. During the check period the income of the respondent from his known sources was Rs.5,55,160/-. The total expenditure incurred during the check period by the respondent was Rs.3,64,301/-. Likely the savings of the respondent after subtracting his expenditure from his income comes to Rs.1,90,959/-. Thus the respondent had acquired and was in possession of the assets disproportionate to the known source of his income to the extent of Rs.4,84,033/- . The respondent could not satisfactorily account for the same though he was given an ample opportunity to explain. The Divisional Engineer (Operations) APSEB, Nalgonda being the competent authority to remove the respondent from service had accorded sanction for prosecution of the respondent in a court of law. Hence the respondent has committed the offence punishable under section 13 (1) (e) r/w 13 (2) of the Act. 3 In order to establish the guilt of the respondent/accused the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 19 and exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.42. In support of his case the respondent examined D.Ws.1 to 16 and Exs.D.1 to D.11. 4 The trial court having analysed the said evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the respondent / accused for the charged offence and accordingly acquitted him of the said offence. Hence the appeal by the State. 5 The learned standing counsel Mr. V. Ravi Kiran Rao submitted that the trial court erred in not considering the evidence on record in respect of Item Nos.2 & 3 i.e. receipt of rentals under income schedule, though the prosecution has established its claim through P.Ws.19 and item No.7 i.e. the promissory note for Rs.10,000/- marked as Ex.P.20 and the other house hold articles under item No.15 which were marked in Ex.P.23 etc and according to him had the trial court taken these aspects into consideration in a proper perspective, it would have definitely come to the conclusion that the said assets of the respondent are disproportionate to the known sources of his income. The court below ought not to have relied on the evidence of D.W.16 in respect of house hold expenditure of the respondent for the reason that he cannot have any personal knowledge about the same. According to him, the trial curt ought to have taken into consideration the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 19 and the income tax returns filed by the wife of the respondent wherein she claimed an expenditure of Rs.12,700/- per month. 6 Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial court has rightly evaluated the entire evidence in coming to the conclusion that the said case filed by the appellant is false and there are no disproportionate assets. 7 In the light of the said submissions made by both the counsel, this court looked into the judgment impugned in this appeal. From the calculations it appears that the income of the respondent is Rs.7,61,059.63 ps. After deducting the expenditure the total savings will work out to Rs.5,17,368-40 ps. Whereas the total assets according to the case of the prosecution are Rs.5,92,642-00. The disproportionate assets even according to the case of the prosecution are only Rs.75,273-60 ps. As per the norms a margin of 10% of the total income has to be given and if the same is valued at Rs.10% it works out to Rs.76,105/- and the said disproportion is less than the said amount. Thus it is clear that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the respondent / accused is in possession of assets which are disproportionate to the known sources of his income and accordingly I see no merits in this appeal and is thus dismissed. --------------- 08.09.2010 Kvsn