MCrC No. 11365/10 14/2/2011 Shri Aditya Adhikari, Special Public Prosecutor, for the appli- cant/SPE Lokayukta. Heard on admission. This is an application, under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of leave to appeal against the order of acquittal in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 passed by Special Judge, Sagar on 30/8/2010 in Special Case No.02/2006. As per the prosecution version, during the check period from 1/4/1991 to 29/1/2001, the respondent, while working as Sub-Engi- neer, RES Deori, has been able to acquire pecuniary sources and properties disproportionate to his known sources of income to the ex- tent of Rs.7,97,645/-. The respondent pleaded false implication due to sheer malice in view of the fact that members of his family had been in active politics. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 34 witnesses whereas defence produced 36 witnesses to explain the sources for acquisition of the excess proper- ty in question. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal that the finding of not guilty was recorded for the following reasons :- (1) As admitted by Satish Mishra (PW30) the raiding Officer, no opportunity was afforded to the respondent to explain acquisition of properties before joining government service. (2) The representation made by the respondent against his proposed prosecution was not considered despite the fact that he had given a satisfactory account for allegedly disproportionate property. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER AND REGISTERED AS SLP(CRI.) NO.8630/2011 HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE APEX COURT ON 08.11.2011. (3) The respondent had not suppressed any acquisition of property from various sources and his explanation for the disproportionate property forming subject matter of charge was reasonably acceptable. These reasonings, in turn, were based on the following facts as established by the corresponding pieces of evidence and material on record:- (a) income received by the respondent consequent to family partition, as recorded in the deed (Ex.D-1), though not registered yet duly proved, was not taken into consideration. (b) the investigating agency had failed to collect informa- tion as to sources of respondent’s income other than salary. (c) the income derived by the respondent, who was adopted by his uncle Ramprasad (since dead) by way of a registered adoption deed (Ex.D-8), from the properties fallen in the share of Ram Prasad was also not taken into account. (d) Devi Singh (PW5), the Sarpanch of the Village and one of the Panch witnesses to search of the house of the respondent and his brother Jagdish, categorically admit- ted that in the family partition effected in 1988, nearly 50 acres of land had fallen in his share. (e) As admitted by G.P. Shandilya (PW6), the Upper De- vision Clerk during the period from 1988 to 1995, the re- spondent had informed Janpad Panchayat, Sagar that he had earned an income of Rs.10.57 lacs from agriculture. (f) C.P. Singh (PW13), the Officer in-charge of MP Seed Corporation, deposed that a total amount of Rs. 19,28,400/- was paid to the respondent through account payee cheque during the period from 1996 to 2000 against price of high quality seeds supplied by him. (g) As evidenced the receipts (Ex.D31 to D34) the re- spondent, during the check period, had received a total amount of Rs.11,66,430/- from the Forest Department as price of the tree sold by him. (h) It was also proved from the other evidence that agriculture was the main source of respondent’s income. Although, learned Special Public Prosecutor has strenuously contended that learned trial Judge has erred in computing the actual income of the respondent yet fact of the matter is that there was am- ple evidence to show that the respondent had been deriving income from other sources regularly. Moreover, amongst these sources, only two namely supply of High Quality Seed to the MP Seed Corpo- ration and Sale of trees to the forest department were sufficient to satisfactorily account for the disproportionate assets worth Rs.7.97,645/-. It is well settled that the order of acquittal should not be dis- turbed unless the conclusions drawn on the evidence on record, are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable. Taking into consideration the reasons assigned in the face of evidence on record establishing the aforesaid facts and circum- stances, the view taken by the learned trial Judge was apparently a possible view. As such, no interference is called for with the order of acquittal in question. In the result, the leave application stands dismissed in limine. C.C. as per rules. (R.C. Mishra) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge