1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.212 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant V/s. Vijayendra Rajerao Hallur & anr. ..Respondents Ms.A.A.Mane, A.P.P, for the State Mr.Nitin Jamadar, Advocate, for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 13TH AUGUST, 2008 P.C. . Statement at Exh.173 are the details of the property held by the respondents. The prosecution has assessed the entire property and the learned Judge in paragraph 44 of his Judgment observed that the total income of the accused No.1 and his wife will be Rs.10,69,081.00/- while the total expenditure during the check period is Rs.2,63,635.00/- and the savings he has calculated are Rs.8,05,446.00/- and according to him, the total assets held by the accused No.1 and his wife are worth Rs.7,16,874.00/- which he observed is 2 less than likely savings of the accused and his wife. The details given by the prosecution about the valuation of the assets, cannot be disected at this stage but at the same time during the span of 20-22 years i.e.check period, it raise a doubt as to the respondents could have only spent Rs.2,63, 635/-. The findings of the learned Judge on the valuation and on the onus also require consideration. Hence, leave to appeal is granted. (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)