THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Appeal No. 634 of 2002 Date: 12.03.2010 Between: State: Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Anantapur Range, Anantapur. .. Appellant/Complainant And K. Venkata Swamy, Forest Range Officer, O/o Project Director, Desert Development Programme, Anantapur. .. Respondent/Accused THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Appeal No. 634 of 2002 Judgment: The State of A.P., represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ananthapur Range, Ananthapur, aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.02.2002 passed in C.C. No. 3 of 1999 by the Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, acquitting the respondent herein from the charge under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the P.C. Act’), preferred this appeal. The appellant hereinafter will be referred to as the accused for the sake of convenience. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The accused worked as Forest Range Officer in the office of Project Director, Desert Development Programme, Ananthapur from 11.07.1994 to 14.06.1996. On credible information that the accused acquired huge assets by indulging in corrupt and illegal practices a case in Crime No.6/ACB-ATP/96 was registered after obtaining authorization from the competent authority, vide proceedings No.19/MSB-II/ATP/96, dated 07.06.1996, and search warrants were obtained on 11.06.1996 and searches were conducted at various places and check period was taken from 14.11.1980 i.e., the date of accused entering into Government service to 10.06.1996 i.e., till the date of searches. Alleging that the accused acquired and was found in possession of assets worth Rs.6,99,832/- in his name and in the name of his family members and that his income from all known sources was arrived at Rs.8,63,962/- and that the expenditure was calculated at Rs.4,72,36/- and that the likely savings of the accused was arrived at Rs.3,91,598/- and that the accused was found in possession of assets worth Rs.6,99,832/- and thus found to be in possession of disproportionate assets as on the terminal date of check period to a tune of Rs.3,08,234/- and that the accused could not satisfactory account for the disproportionate assets, a charge sheet has been filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act. Since the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 18 and got marked Exs.P1 to P65, and on behalf of the accused DW.1 was examined and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. The learned Special Judge, having considered the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the total income of the accused during check period was Rs.9,06,240/- and the expenditure was at Rs.3,73,800/- and likely savings were Rs.5,32,440/- and that the assets were arrived at Rs.5,49,338/- and that the disproportionate assets are only Rs.16,898/- and that it is less than 10% of the total amount and that as per the decision in Union of India and others v. B.C. Chaturvedi ((1995) 6 SCC 749), maximum benefit available to the delinquent is deduction of 10% of the total income in calculating disproportionate assets, which comes to Rs.90,624/-, and therefore, it cannot be said that the accused acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income by adopting corrupt practices and thus finally held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the accused and acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the said judgment, this appeal has been filed by the State. Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, submits that certain items such as cycle, chairs, table, typewriter, tennis rockets, air cooler, wooden diwan, sofa set, carpet etc., cannot be treated as consumable items and the learned Special Judge did not properly appreciate the evidence and went wrong in deducting the amount of Rs.1,50,494/- out of the total assets of Rs.1,78,015/- towards the value of the household items on the ground that they were in the nature of consumables. It is further argued that there is no legal evidence to show that the articles mentioned in Annexure-E were gifted articles and that the learned Special Judge did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. Sri G. Rama Sharma, learned counsel for the accused, submitted that the assets were valued by including the consumables and therefore the learned Special Judge was right in deducting an amount of Rs.1,50,494/- towards consumables. It is further submitted that PW.17 the Investigating Officer admitted that the wife of the accused worked in B.T. College and therefore the income of the wife of the accused was correctly added to the income of the accused and that the trial Court, after an elaborate discussion, determined the income, expenditure and the value of the assets, and therefore, there is no need to disturb the findings of the trial Court. It is also his submission that PW.17 himself registered and investigated the case and filed charge sheet and thus violated the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that PW.17 had not obtained the permission of his superior officers before registering the case and during the course of investigation and that there is no reference to Ex.P54 in the FIR and that for the first time PW.17 produced Ex.P54 before the Court and in the circumstances it has to be held that PW.17 carried out the investigation without any authorization by his superior officers and therefore the entire investigation is unauthorized and invalid. In support of his contention he relied on a judgment reported in State Inspector of Police, Visakhapatnam v. Surya Sankaram Karri[1]. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the findings of the learned Special Judge are perverse resulting in miscarriage of justice? It is settled law that the judgment of acquittal cannot be interfered with unless it appears that there was total misreading of the evidence or that the findings are perverse. It is also settled law that it is the duty of the appellate Court to look into the evidence adduced in the case and arrive at an independent conclusion. It is also settled law that even if two views are possible, one of acquittal and the other of conviction, the higher Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal (See State of Rajasthan v. Bhanwar Singh[2]). Thus the settled legal principle is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with by an appellate Court where the judgment of the trial Court is based on evidence and the view taken by it is reasonable and plausible. I have gone through the entire evidence and the judgment of the lower Court and it is clear that the judgment of the lower Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence and the view taken by it is reasonable and plausible. Coming to the facts of this case, as far as items 1 and 2 i.e., residential building bearing No.6/560/3, situated at Ramnagar, Ananthapur, which is valued at Rs.4,48,000/- and house site measuring 0-10 cents in Survey No.110-1 and 110-2 situated at Papampalli, which is valued at Rs.49,000/-, are concerned, there is no dispute with regard to their valuation. Similarly, there is no dispute with regard to the value of items 4 to 9 as there was no evidence adduced by the accused. Item No.10 i.e., UTI certificates for Rs.2000/- was also added to the assets of the accused. The only dispute is with regard to item No.3. Item No.3 is movable articles found in the house of the accused. Ex.P1 is the inventory. Ex.P58 is the bill for Rs.8,800/- issued by Poonams Furniture House, Bangalore. Ex.P59 is the bill for Rs.20,000/- for purchase of T.V. PW.17 the Inspector of Police, who conducted the search admitted that wearing apparel and undergarments of the accused and his wife were shown in Ex.P1. The trial Court held that as seen from Ex.P1 inventory it includes wearing apparel, books, furniture, household utensils including small items like plastic mug, ball point pens, toys, mirror, wooden stool, banians, lungies, towels, umbrella etc. Admittedly, no luxurious items were found in the house of the accused. The Special Judge, having appreciated the evidence, held that most of the items mentioned in Ex.P1 except gold ornaments and cash come under only consumables and they cannot be treated as assets of the accused. Gold items i.e., gold chain weighing 42 grams, ear rings 4 grams, gold ankles 2 grams 19 in number, gold ring studded with stones 2500 grams, gold ring 1 gram, gold ring with white stones 3 grams and 4 ear rings were found. Thus the total gold found was about 8 tolas. It is the case of the accused that 20 tolas of gold was given by his in-laws to his wife at the time of marriage. The trial Court held that considering the family status there is absolutely no ground to disbelieve the contention of the accused that his in-laws gave 20 tolas of gold to his wife at the time of marriage and further observed that it is quite common that at the time of marriage parents of the girl present gold ornaments to their daughter. The disputed items are; Cycle valued at Rs.1,400/-, Two Chairs at Rs.100/-, Wooden Table at Rs.100/-, Typewriter at Rs.900/-, Tennis Racket at Rs.1,100/-, Air Cooler at Rs.2000/- Wooden Diwan at Rs.1000/-, Sofa set at Rs.8,800/-, Carpet woolen Rs.2000/-, TV Stand Rs.500/-, Raybann Spects at Rs.250/-, iron almirah at Rs.600/-, Iron box at Rs.500/-, exercise cycle at Rs.1,150/-, vacuum cleaner at Rs.3,300/-, Jagger at Rs.2500/-, Video cassettes at Rs.1000/-, Ceiling Fans at Rs.1500/-, Mixi at Rs.2000/-, Rice Cooker at Rs.1600/-, Gas cylinder at Rs.1000/- and Water Filter at Rs.4000/-. Even if all these items are treated as non-consumables and come within the meaning of assets their value is less than Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, even if the argument of the special Public Prosecutor is accepted the total assets of the accused roughly comes to Rs.5,90,000/- only. As far as income of the accused is concerned, item No.1 pay and allowances from 14.11.1980 to 14.06.1996 is Rs.4,23,632/-, item No.2 house building loan from A.B. Homes Ltd., Tirupathi is Rs.3,00,000/-, item No.3 LIC amount received from Money back policy is Rs.20,000/-, item No.4 interest from SB Account No.27731 held with Andhra Bank, Kovvur in the name of the accused is Rs.192/-, item No.5 interest from S.B. Account No.6814 held with Andhra Bank, Anantapur in the name of the accused is Rs.26/-, item No.6 interest from S.B. Account No.KH76, 77 in the names of son and daughter of the accused with Andhra Bank is Rs.112/-, item No.7 cash gifts received by the wife of the accused through DDS from her sisters, mother and brother Rs.1,20,000/-. Item No.8 Rs.28000/- said to be received by the wife of the accused as Stridhana, from her father from time to time is concerned, the version of the accused is not believed, since no evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. Item No.9 is additional item No.2. It is the case of the accused that his wife worked as part time lecturer in BT College before marriage and she earned Rs.14,778/-. So, basing on the evidence of DW.1 Senior Assistant from B.T. College, Madanapally and Ex.D2 the certificate issued by the Principal of the said college, the amount of Rs.14,778/- is added to the income of the accused. Under Item No.10 an amount of Rs.1500/- per month towards phone calls made by the accused as Secretary of the Forest Range Officers Association, Ananthapur, was added to the income of the accused. PW.6 purchased colour TV from the accused in June 1985 for Rs.5,000/- and the said amount was added to the income of the accused under Item No.11. It is submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the accused purchased Onida colour TV by spending an amount of Rs.14,744/- and sold it for Rs.5000/- to PW.6 and thereby incurred loss of Rs.9,744/- and the said amount is to be added to the expenditure of the accused. Even if the said argument of the learned Special Public Prosecutor is accepted, the total income of the accused comes to Rs.9,01,240/-. As far as expenditure is concerned, item No.1 is insurance premium of Rs.62,146/- remitted towards LIC Policy No.6502577 and item No.2 is premium remitted towards the pearles general finance and investment company limited Rs.1,500/-. Item No.3 is expenditure incurred towards registration of house bearing No.6/560-3, situated at Ramnagar, Anantapur – Rs.1,04,01/-. On this item the learned Special Judge, considering Ex.P11, has taken the said expenditure at Rs.45,600/- only. As far as other items are concerned, there appears to be no dispute. Thus, the total expenditure comes to Rs.3,73,800/-. Thus, the total difference of amount is Rs.62,560/-. It is not in dispute that 10% of the total income has to be given deduction and according to the trial Court it comes to Rs.90,624/-. Even if the contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor is accepted, the total difference of amount is less than Rs.90,624/-. In view of the same, I am of the considered view that the judgment of the trial Court, which is based on well appreciation of evidence, need not be interfered with. There are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 12.03.2010 Nsr [1] (2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases 172 [2] AIR 2004 SC 3754