Dismissed

Priyanath Misra v. the Additional Superintendent

Madras HC21 Mar 2018CRL A/691/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A public servant challenged his disproportionate-assets conviction and prosecution sanction. The Court upheld the sanction and corrected omissions and duplication in the asset, income and expenditure assessment. It nevertheless found substantial unexplained disproportionate assets, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence.

What the court decided

AI extract

Priyanath Misra Vs the Additional Superintendent — Corruption | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Reserved on: 07.03.2018 Pronounced on: 21.03.2018

¶3

Coram:

¶4

The Honourable Dr.Justice G.Jayachandran

¶5

Priyanath Misra, ..Appellant/Accused

¶6

/versus/

¶7

The Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB/Chennai. .. Respondent/Complainant

¶8

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 394(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction and sentence passed against this Appellant in C.C.No.24 of 2011 on the file of the IX Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai dated 13.10.2015.

¶9

This appeal is directed against the sentence and conviction imposed on the accused by the Trial Court in Special C.C.No.24 of 2011 on the file of IX Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai vide judgment dated 13.10.2015 for possessing disproportionate assets beyond the known source of income.

¶10

The appellant herein 'Captain' Priyanath Misra of Mercantile Marine Department while working as Nautical Surveyor at Tuticorin came under the scanner of CBI when they received reliable information that during the period 2000-2009 he had amassed assets disproportionate to his known source of income to tune of Rs.45 lakhs in his name and in the name of his family members.

¶11

Based on the said information, the First Information Report was registered by CBI on 29.01.2010. After the conclusion of the investigation, the prosecution has laid final report disclosing that the appellant herein, was working as a Deputy

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

Nautical Surveyor in Director General of Shipping during the check period from 01.04.2000 to 10.08.2009. The assets held by the accused at the end date of check period 10.08.2009 was Rs.1,00,02,180/- whereas the assets held by him on the commencement of the check period 01.04.2000 was Rs.29,44,423/-. The income of the appellant during the check period was assessed at Rs.58,84,433/- after deducting the expenditures incurred by the appellant during the check period and the savings likely would have been made by the appellant, it was found that the appellant had disproportionate assets of Rs.90,37,966/- which is 153.59% over and above the known source of income.

¶14

The Trial Court has framed charge under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the offence of possessing property disproportionate to the known source of income but not satisfactorily accounted.

¶15

To prove the charge the prosecution has examined 25 witnesses and marked 127 Exhibits. In defence the accused has examined 3 witnesses and marked 9 Exhibits. After considering the evidence let in by the prosecution as well as the defence, the explanation about the source in respect of the assets held by him. The trial Court has held that the disproportionate asset possessed by the appellant at the end of the check period is Rs.78,30,396/- which is 131.79% excess to the known source of income. Having held so, the trial Court found the appellant guilty and convicted him to undergo 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1 lakh in default to undergo 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment.

¶16

Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction appeal is filed on the ground that the sanction to prosecute is defective and not valid in the eye of law. The amount found in the fixed deposit is sourced from salary, T.A, D.A and other allowances. Besides from the income derived from the ancestral agricultural land. The honorarium and other allowances received by the appellant were not taken into account by the prosecution as known source of income. The fixed deposits which were renewed periodically from the income prior to the check period were taken as new investments during the check period. The presumptive expenses is exorbitant. The expenses of the appellant son Abilash Misra who is an inmate in the home for the mentally disabled person were met out by his brother, sister and close relatives. The fees and other charges for his daughter study were made through the financial assistance from her uncle, brothers and sisters therefore the amount spent on his son and daughter education ought not to have been added in the statement of expenditure. The expenses incurred to pay LIC policy was from out of his salary. The 30% deduction for presumptive expenditure from out of his gross salary is incorrect and it

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

should be from the net salary and the presumptive expenditure of 30% has no justification or reasoning while all the major expenses like Income Tax, professional Tax, payment of premium and educational expenses of his son and daughter are taken into account separately and added under the expenditure statement. The comparative statement carrying justification and source for income has also been filed in the course of the argument on behalf of the appellant.

¶19

The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant herein before joining the Mercantile Marine Department was working in Shipping Corporation of India for about 15 years as “Captain” in Shipping Corporation of India, his salary was higher than what he was earning in Maritime Marine Department and had enough savings by way of Fixed deposits and in Savings bank accounts. He left that job and joined in MMD with lesser salary in order to take care of his mentally retarded son and for better education of his daughter. The cash recovered from his house during the house search was given by his brother-in-law. The defence witnesses have deposed about that the Gold jewels recovered from the locker were not valued by competent appraiser in the manner known to law.

¶20

Regarding investment it is contended that, the cash balance found in the savings bank account in the name of the appellant in State Bank of Hyderabad, Berhampur is the accumulation of the rental income and interest. The Fixed Deposits of Rs.2 lakhs in the name of his wife Alaka Misra with State Bank of Hyderabad, Berhampur invested on 03.05.2001 is from the transfer of fund from the saving account maintained in the State bank of Hyderabad, Berhampur by the appellant.

¶21

The 10 KVP [Kisan Vikas Patra] each sum of Rs.10,000/was purchased in the joint name of appellant and his wife to a tune of Rs.1 lakh was drawn from his saving at the Post Office Savings account. The FD's of Rs.7 lakhs and Rs.5 lakhs which were in the name of his daughter in United Bank of India, Armenian Street, Chennai are the reinvestments of earlier Fixed Deposits prior to the check period Rs.5,22,500/- in the joint name of the appellant, his wife and daughter is repetitive of deposits made in the name of Pranathi Misra on 08.09.2004. In respect of bank balance in Saving bank account in the Syndicate Bank, which shown as Rs.22,62,824/- at the end of the check period, it is contented that the balance in the said account on the opening date of check period not been provided by the prosecution. Therefore this amount should not been taken into account. A sum of Rs.30,000/- shown as investment in BNP Paribas Tax Saver Open Ended Fund in the name of the appellant was invested from his saving account maintained at Syndicate

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

Bank. Therefore the investments during the check period should be only Rs.36,96,108/- and not Rs.42,98,824/- as stated by the prosecution and asset at the end of the check period including movable, immovable and other deposits should be taken as Rs.53,91,138/- instead of Rs.1,00,02,180/-.

¶24

Regarding income, the learned counsel for the appellant would say that the rental income and the interest accrued in the investments were not properly accounted for. The appellant investments in [MIS] schemes has earned interest as well as bonus. From his LIC policy a sum of Rs.25,000/- was given as refund and the same was deposited in the applicants account maintained at Syndicate Bank, Calcutta. The refund of caution deposits Rs.65,000/- from Rishi Valley School was not taken into account as income, therefore, if the income accrued though savings and investments by way of interest and bonus is taking into credit, his total income during the check period will be Rs.63,49,370/- instead of Rs.58,84,433/-.

¶25

While concluding his arguments, the learned Senior Counsel reiterated again that while taking into account the income during the check period, the salary component of the appellant should be taken as Rs.75,66,697/- which is the gross salary of the appellant. Whereas the prosecution has taken the net salary of Rs.50,45,057/-. While considering the expenditure, 1/3^rd of the gross salary Rs.25,22,232/- has been calculated which is presumptive expenditure. It has been done so by the prosecution without any basics.

¶26

In the light of the judgement reported in Phoolchand Gupta versus The State of Madhya Pradesh, where it has been observed that,

¶27

“The High Court has added presumptive expenses amounting to Rs.1,26,913/- (30 per cent of the total income) to the total expenditure of the appellant and thereby concluded that the appellant was in possession of disproportionate assets. However, there is no evidence on record regarding presumptive expenses. It is a settled principle of law that, in order to draw an inference that a fact in dispute has been established, there must exist on record some material facts, whether direct or circumstantial, from which such an inference can be reasonably drawn. In the present case, there is no evidence on record that would support the High Court's conclusion that presumptive expenses ought to be added to the appellant's total expenditure or that such presumptive expenses would amount to 30 per cent of the appellant's total income. Therefore, the high court has erred in adding these presumptive expenses to the appellant's total expenditure and thereby concluding

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

that the appellant was in possession oft disproportionate assets.”

¶30

And also relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vasant Rao Guhe versus State of Madhya Pradesh he emphasised that the prosecution has to prove the charge of acquisition of assets disproportionate to the known source of income and it has not been satisfactorily accounted. When there is a pattern difference between the amount mentioned in the charge framed against the appellant and on which he was put on trial, based on calculations made by applying inferences and guess work it cannot be construed that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶31

The relevant passage in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vasant Rao Guhe versus State of Madhya Pradesh is:

¶32

“As would be evident from the rendition of the learned Trial Court on the two major heads of income i.e. pay and agricultural earnings, the learned Trial Court not only of its own embarked on an inquiry to ascertain and compute the figures, it wholly resorted to inferences in calculating the pay for the periods omitted by the prosecution as well as in fixing 60% expenditure from pay towards household needs. Its assessment of agricultural income of the appellant to say the least is also wholly presumptive in absence of any basis whatsoever in support thereof. This is noticeably in the face of the admission of the prosecution that while levelling the charge against the appellant of acquisition of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, it had not accounted for his income from pay vis-à-vis the periods omitted as well as from agricultural earnings. The figures ultimately arrived at by the Trial Court are thus patently different from those mentioned in the charge framed against the appellant and on which he was put on trial. In other words, the appellant was convicted by the Trial Court on a charge different from the one framed against him and that too on the basis of calculations made by it by applying inferences and guess works.

¶33

Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that the submission made by the counsel for the appellant had been considered substantially by the Court below itself and had given credit to the source reasonable explained. The Trial Court had held that the expenditure during the check period cannot be 1/3^rd of the gross income but it should be 1/3^rd of the net income and had fixed the expenditure as Rs.16,81,686/-

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

instead of Rs.25,22,232/-. Similarly, the expenditure for M/s.Pranathi Sudha Misra in Rishi Valley school is reduced to Rs.6,84,427/- instead of Rs.6,94,427/-.

¶36

In response to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that a sum of Rs.65,000/- which was returned at the end of M/s.Pranathi Sudha Misra study at Rishi Valley School on 28.03.2009 by was of cheque ought to have been considered as income since the caution deposit of Rs.81,000/made on 16.06.2003 had been taken as expenditure. Based on the evidence of PW.18 and Ex.105 the learned Special Public Prosecutor would fairly concede this submission.

¶37

In response to the non-appraising of the jewels found in the locker by competent appraiser. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I would submit that Ex.P.29 locker proceedings clearly state that the weight of the above jewellery found in the locker were weighed by Debashish Parida using the bullion scale. PW.4 [Debashish Parida], in his evidence had said that he used the weighing machine of the bank to determine the weight. The inventory was drawn in the presence of the appellant herein the value of the gold jewels from Item No.1 to 44 as found in Ex.P.29 not disputed by the appellant either at the time of locker proceedings or subsequently. Therefore the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that the entire value of the Gold jewels found in the locker should be excluded from the assets possessed by the appellant at the end of the check period cannot be countenance. Even if some minor difference in calculating the expenditure or income is occurred, after due concession given by the Trial Court, it no way help the appellant to justify huge disproportionate assets held in his possession without satisfactorily accounting.

¶38

The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit the prime source of income for the appellant is salary and investments made by him in bank and post office. Apart from these sources, there is no other legal source of income. DW.1 to DW.3 have not provided information which would enhance the case of the defence explaining the source of income.

¶39

A huge cash of Rs.8,04,000/- was recovered during the house search of the appellant, concealed in various places of the house. Ex.P.107 [Corporate Fusion Diary] revealing the places were those money are hidden was seized during the search. The evidence of DW.1 to DW.3 as well as explanation given by the accused during the questioning does not satisfactorily accounts the money. Therefore, the Trial Court Judgment cannot be faulted. Hence the appeal has to be dismissed.

¶40

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶41

Points for consideration

¶42

“Whether the prosecution had satisfactorily proved beyond doubt that the assets in possession of the appellant were disproportionate to his income and not satisfactorily accounted”

¶43

In so far as the plea raised by the appellant regarding sanction, the perusal of the record indicates that the sanction order Ex.P.1 has been accorded by the Abhijit Bakshi, Under Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, Government of India. The contention of the appellant is that Under Secretary who is not above the rank of the accused is not competent to accord sanction for prosecution. Whereas from the evidence of PW.1 and Ex.P.1 [sanction order], it is clear that the competent authority is the President of India and PW.1 has issued the order on behalf of the President of India. The Trial Court in detail had discussed about this plea and after referring rulings of the Supreme Court and High Court's and the deposition of PW.1 had rightly concluded the sanction order is valid. This Court finds no reason to differ from the finding of the Trial Court.

¶44

To better appreciation of the other contention raised by the appellant, the counter submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor, and the judgment impugned before this Court, it is necessary to extract the statement of property relied by the prosecution.

¶45

Statement-A: Assets at the beginning of period of check [01.04.2000]

¶46

Sl.No Immovable Assets Value of the
assets
1. Plot of land measuring 50 ftx65 ft. Rs.590,000/-
purchased in 1987 in 1 st lane,
Gajpath Nagar, Behrampur on which a
house was constructed by the
accused in 1989.
2. Plot of land measuring 30 ftx60 ft. Rs.307,000/-
in 13 th lane, Gajpat Nagar,
Behrampur in the year, 1979 on
which a house was constructed by
the accused in 1994.
Total Rs.897,000/-

¶47

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶48

Sl.N o	Movable Assets	Year of acquisi tion	Value of the assets as per in (Rs.)	Remarks
	Inventory of articles residence and locker in	found SBH, Be	during s rhampur.	earch of
1.	Sofa Set with Centre Table	2000	Rs.7,000
2.	Table with four chairs	1995	Rs.5,000/-
3.	Two-in-one GF 666	1985	Rs.5,000/-
4.	Godrej 100 Ltrs.Fridge	1999	Rs.4,000/-
5.	Godrej Magic Eye Fridge	2000	Rs.11,000/ -
6.	Philips Small CTV	1996	Rs.6,000/-
7.	Wooden Double Cot	1995	Rs.3,000/-
8.	Wooden Cloths Stand	1996	Rs.100
9.	Wooden Double Cot	1996	Rs.3,000/-
10.	Wooden Single Cot	1996	Rs.2,500/-
11.	Steel Almirah/Wardrobe	1995	Rs.1,200/-
12.	Wooden Almirah with mesh	1995	Rs.100/-
13.	Trunk Box 3 Nos.	1998	Rs.900/-
14.	Cane Chairs and Book Shelves	1996	Rs.2,500/-
15.	Steel Wardrobe/Almirah big	1995	Rs.1,200/-
16.	Steel Wardrobe/Almirah medium	1995	Rs.600/-
17.	Ear Studs Two sets 16 gms	1984		Marriage Stridhan
18.	Ring one no.-8 gms	1984		Marriage Stridhan
19.	Nose stud one no.- 4 gms	1984		Marriage Stridhan
20.	Chain five Nos.-40 gms	1984	Rs.40,000/ -
21.	Chain with Imitation coral-5gms	-	Rs,5,000/-
22.	Ear Studs 5 sets/40gms	1984		Marriage Stridhan
23.	Nose Studs 3 nos-24 gms	1984		Marriage Stridhan

¶49

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶50

Sl.N o	Movable Assets	Year of acquisi tion	Value of the assets as per in (Rs.)	Remarks
24.	Ring 1 No.-8 gms	1984		Marriage Stridhan
25.	Ear studs 7 nos.56 gms	1984		Marriage Stridhan
26.	Pendant 1 no.- 4 gms	1984		Marriage Stridhan
27.	Rings 3 nos.- 9 gms	1984		Marriage Stridhan
28.	Chain 1 no.- 16 gms	-		Brother' s gift
29.	Necklace 2 nos.-48 gms	-		Marriage Stridhan
30.	Ear Studs 2 sets- 4 gms	-		Marriage Stridhan
31.	Bangle one Set- 16 gms	-		Marriage Stridhan
32.	Bangle stone studded-16 gms	-		Marriage Stridhan
33.	Ear Stud and two pendants-4 gms	-		Marriage Stridhan
34.	Five gold coins	-	Rs.40,000/ -
35.	VCR	1996	Rs.4,000/-
36.	Maruti 800 Car No. OR- 07 A 0210	1993	Rs.156,000 /-
37.	Bajaj Chetak No. OR-07 9296	1993	Rs.18,000/ -
	Articles found in the L Berhampur	ocker of	accused in	SBH,
38.	Gold Chain 17.2 gms	1984		Gift
39.	Two nos of gold chains 16.5 gms	1985	Rs,4,950
40.	One gold ring studded with red stone 5 gms	1984		Gift
41.	One gold chain with ganesh locket 15 gms	1997	Rs,7,500/-
42.	One gold chain 32 gms	1997	Rs.15,360/ -

¶51

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶52

Sl.N	Movable Assets	Year of	Value of	Remarks
o		acquisi tion	the assets as per in (Rs.)
43	Three pairs of gold ear rings 6 nos. 23 gms	1998	Rs.11,040/ -
44.	One gold ring studden with colour stones 2 gms	1984		Gift
45.	Six Gold coins-36 gms	1996- 1999		Gift from
				shipping
				Companie s on
				Diwali
46.	Six Nos of gold coins- 110 gms	1988-93	Rs.44,000/ -
47.	One gold chain with heart shaped locket-24 gms	-do-	Rs.10,560
48.	One gold chain with locket-25 gms	-do-	Rs.11,000/ -
49.	One gold chain with locket studded with a red stone-15 gms	-do-	Rs.6,600/-
50.	One gold chain with a lock-24 gms	-do-	Rs.10,560/ -
51.	10 nos. of gold coins weighing-62 gms	1996-99		Gift from Shipping Companie s on
				Diwali
52.	One necklace studded with red & while	1997	Rs.9,450/-
53.	stones-21 gms One necklace studded with blue stones and pearls-26gms.	1992- 1993	Rs.7,600
54.	One gold necklace-19 gms	1992-93	Rs.7,600/-
55.	One gold necklace-18 gms	1992-93	Rs.7,200/-
56	One gold necklace- 23.5 gms	1992-93	Rs.9,400/-
57.	Three gold rings- 9 gms	1992-93	Rs.3,600/-

¶53

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov. in/hcservices/

¶54

Sl.N o	Movable Assets Year of acquisi tion Value of the assets as per in (Rs.) Remarks
58.	One gold necklace studded with colour stones-21 gms 1992-93 Rs.8,400/-
59.	One gold necklace studded with colour stones-16 gms 1992-93 Rs.6,400/-
60.	One gold necklace-18 1992-93 Rs.6,800/-
	gms
61.	One gold necklace-30 gms 1992-93 Rs.12,000/ -
62.	23 pairs of gold ear rings-98 gms 1988-93 Rs.35,000/ -
63.	Two gold lockets (one studded with green stone)-12 gms 1988-93 Rs.4,200/-
	Total Rs.547,720 /-
Other deposit Sl.No	s found to have been made Description of deposit Value
.	(in Rs.)
1.	Bank balance in SB A/c. No.52099792812 in the name of Capt. Misra with State Bank of Hyderabad, Berhampur. Rs.132,756/-
2.	FD A/c in the name of Alaka Misra No.62007897104 with State Bank of Hyderbad, Berhampur on 05.01.1994. Rs.60,000/-
3.	FD A/c in the name of Alaka Misra no. 62019084071 with State Bank of Hyderabad, Berhampur on 04.08.1994 Rs.100,000/-
4.	FD A/c in the name of Alaka Misra No. 62024926205 with State Bank of Hyderbad, Berhampur on 30.10.1991 Rs.50,000/-
5.	FD A/c in the name of Alaka Misra No. 52099812922 with state Bank of Hyderabad, Berhampur on 23.06.1993 Rs.40,000/-
6.	FD A/c in the name of Capt. Priyanath Misra no.52099822179 with State Bank of Hyderabad, Berhampur on 12.07.1993. Rs.100,000/-

¶55

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶56

Sl.No .	Description of deposit Value (in Rs.)
7.	FD A/c in the name of Capt. Priyanath Misra no.52099822168 with State Bank of Hyderabad, Berhampur on 09.06.1998. Rs.100,000/-
8.	Balance in the Post Office Savings account No.3038106 in the names of Capt. Priyanath Misra and Smt.Alaka Misra in Medical College Campus, Sub- Post Office, Berhampur Rs.71,947/-
9.	Investment made in MIS A/c.No.360164 and 360165 in the name of Capt. Priyanath Misra and Smt.Alaka Misra on 12.12.1994 and closed on 05.05.2001 & Rs.150,000/-
	01.05.2001.
10.	Investment in NSCs-no. 22 EE 74860 to 744865 of the vale of Rs.10,000/- each and one NSC of the Value of Rs.5,000/- in the name of Capt. Priyanath Misra and Smt.Alaka Misra in GPO, Chennai Rs.65,000/-
11.	Investment in VCC in Syndicate Bank, Kolkotta, by Capt. Priyanath Misra No.9792.405.418/2 for Rs.85,000/-. Rs.85,000/-
12.	Investment in VCC in Syndicate Bank, Kolkotta, by Capt. Priyanath Misra No.9792.405.421/2 for Rs.85,000/-. Rs.85,000/-
13.	Investment in VCC in Syndicate Bank, Kolkotta, by Smt.Alaka Misra No.9792.417.43/2 for Rs.85,000/- Rs.80,000/-
14.	Investment in VCC in Syndicate Bank, Kolkotta, by Smt.Alaka Misra No.9792.417.157/2 for Rs.80,000/- Rs.80,000/-
15.	Investment in VCC in Syndicate Bank, Kolkotta by Capt.Priyanath Misra No.9792.405.886 for Rs.100,000/- Rs.100,000/-
16.	Investment in VCC in Syndicate Bank, Kolkotta, by Smt.Alaka Misra No.9792.417.30/2 for Rs.100,000/- Rs.100,000/-
17.	Investment in VCC in Syndicate Bank, Kolkota, by Smt, Alaka Misra No.9792.417.26/2 for Rs.100,000/- Rs.100,000/- Total Rs.1,499,703 /-

¶57

Total assets at the beginning of the check period is Rs.8,97,000+Rs.5,47,720+Rs.14,99,703=Rs.29,44,423/-

¶58

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶59

Statement-B: Assets at the end of period of check [10.08.2009]

¶60

Sl.No	Immovable Assets	Value of the assets
1.	Plot of land measuring 50 ftx65 ft. purchased in 1987 in 1^st lane, Gajpath Nagar, Behrampur on which a house was constructed by the accused in 1989.	Rs.590,000/-
2.	Plot of land measuring 30 ftx60 ft. in 13^thlane, Gajpat Nagar, Behrampur in the year, 1979 on which a house was constructed by the accused in 1994. Total	Rs.307,000/- Rs.897,000/-
Sl.N o	Movable Assets Year of acquisi	Value of the assets as Remarks
	tion	per in (Rs.)
	Inventory of articles found residence and locker in SBH, Be	during search of rhampur.
1.	Sofa Set with Centre Table 2000	Rs.7,000
2.	Table with four chairs 1995	Rs.5,000/-
3.	Two-in-one GF 666 1985	Rs.5,000/-
4.	Godrej 100 Ltrs.Fridge 1999	Rs.4,000/-
5.	Godrej Magic Eye Fridge 2000	Rs.11,000/-
6.	Philips Small CTV 1996	Rs.6,000/-
7.	Wooden Double Cot 1995	Rs.3,000/-
8.	Wooden Cloths Stand 1996	Rs.100
9.	Wooden Double Cot 1996	Rs.3,000/-
10.	Wooden Single Cot 1996	Rs.2,500/-
11.	Steel Almirah/Wardrobe 1995	Rs.1,200/-
12.	Wooden Almirah with mesh 1995	Rs.100/-
13.	Trunk Box 3 Nos. 1998	Rs.900/-
14.	Cane Chairs and Book Shelves 1996	Rs.2,500/-

¶61

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶62

Sl.N	Movable Assets	Year of	Value of the	Remarks
o		acquisi tion	assets as per in (Rs.)
15.	Steel Wardrobe/Almirah big	1995	Rs.1,200/-
16.	Steel Wardrobe/Almirah medium	1995	Rs.600/-
17.	Ear Studs Two sets 16 gms	1984	-	Marriage Stridhan
18.	Ring one no.-8 gms	1984	-	Marriage Stridhan
19.	Nose stud one no.- 4 gms	1984	-	Marriage Stridhan
20.	Chain five Nos.-40 gms	1984	Rs.40,000/-
21.	Chain with Imitation coral-5gms	-	Rs,5,000/-
22.	Ear Studs 5 sets/40gms	1984	-	Marriage
				Stridhan
23.	Nose Studs 3 nos-24 gms	1984	-	Marriage Stridhan
24.	Ring 1 No.-8 gms	1984	-	Marriage Stridhan
25.	Ear studs 7 nos.56 gms	1984	-	Marriage Stridhan
26.	Pendant 1 no.- 4 gms	1984	-	Marriage Stridhan
27.	Rings 3 nos.- 9 gms	1984	-	Marriage Stridhan
28.	Chain 1 no.- 16 gms	-	-	Brother' s gift
29.	Necklace 2 nos.-48 gms	-	-	Marriage Stridhan
30.	Ear Studs 2 sets- 4	-	-	Marriage
	gms			Stridhan
31.	Bangle one Set- 16 gms	-	-	Marriage Stridhan
32.	Bangle stone studded- 16 gms	-	-	Marriage Stridhan
33.	Ear Stud and two pendants-4 gms	-	-	Marriage Stridhan
34.	Five gold coins	-	Rs.40,000/-
35.	VCR	1996	Rs.4,000/-

¶63

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶64

Sl.N o	Movable Assets	Year of acquisi tion	Value of the assets as per in (Rs.)	Remarks
36.	Maruti 800 Car No. OR- 07 A 0210	1993	Rs.156,000/-
37.	Bajaj Chetak No. OR-07 9296	1993	Rs.18,000/-
	Articles found in th B	e locker erhampur	of accused	in SBH,
38.	Gold Chain 17.2 gms	1984		Gift
39.	Two nos of gold chains 16.5 gms	1985	Rs,4,950
40.	One gold ring studded with red stone 5 gms	1984		Gift
41.	One gold chain with ganesh locket 15 gms	1997	Rs,7,500/-
42.	One gold chain 32 gms	1997	Rs.15,360/-
43	Three pairs of gold ear rings 6 nos. 23 gms	1998	Rs.11,040/-
44.	One gold ring studden with colour stones 2	1984		Gift
	gms
45.	Six Gold coins-36 gms	1996- 1999		Gift from shipping Companie
				s on biwali
46.	Six Nos of gold coins-110 gms	1988-93	Rs.44,000/-
47.	One gold chain with heart shaped locket-24 gms	-do-	Rs.10,560
48.	One gold chain with locket-25 gms	-do-	Rs.11,000/-
49.	One gold chain with locket studded with a red stone-15 gms	-do-	Rs.6,600/-
50.	One gold chain with a lock-24 gms	-do-	Rs.10,560/-

¶65

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶66

Sl.N o	Movable Assets	Year of acquisi tion	Value of the assets as per in (Rs.)	Remarks
51.	10 nos. of gold coins weighing-62 gms	1996-99		Gift from Shipping Companie s on Diwali
52.	One necklace studded with red & while stones-21 gms	1997	Rs.9,450/-
53.	One necklace studded with blue stones and	1992- 1993	Rs.7,600
	pearls-26gms.
54.	One gold necklace-19 gms	1992- 1993	Rs.7,600/-
55.	One gold necklace-18 gms	1992- 1993	Rs.7,200/-
56	One gold necklace- 23.5 gms	1992- 1993	Rs.9,400/-
57.	Three gold rings- 9 gms	1992- 1993	Rs.3,600/-
58.	One gold necklace studded with colour	1992- 1993	Rs.8,400/-
	stones-21 gms
59.	One gold necklace studded with colour stones-16 gms	1992- 1993	Rs.6,400/-
60.	One gold necklace-18 gms	1992- 1993	Rs.6,800/-
61.	One gold necklace-30 gms	1992- 1993	Rs.12,000/-
62.	23 pairs of gold ear rings-98 gms	1988- 1993	Rs.35,000/-
63.	Two gold lockets (one studded with green stone)-12 gms	1988- 1993	Rs.4,200/-
64.	LG Colour TV.	2001	Rs.5,000/-
65.	Show case/TV Trolley	2001	Rs.3,000/-
66.	BSA Ladybird Cycle	2007	Rs.2,500/-
67.	Acer Notepad Computer	-	-	Gifted by shipping Agent

¶67

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶68

Sl.N o	Movable Assets	Year of acquisi tion	Value of the assets as per in (Rs.)	Remarks
68.	Casio Keyboard	-	-	Gifted to daughter by dredger
69.	Table with Chairs	2001	Rs.5,000/-
70.	IFB Microwave oven	2002	Rs.10,000/-
71.	National Washing	2001	Rs.5,000/-
	Machine
72.	Cromption Greaves Pedestal Fan	2001	-	Gifted
73.	Pioneer DVD/DiVX	2008	-	Gifted
74.	Sony Handycam	2007	-	Gifted
75.	Computer Table	2004	-	Gifted
76.	Dressing Table Set	2001	-	Gifted
77.	Octavia 1.5 Ton AC	2002	Rs.12,000/-
78.	Small Truck Box 2 Nos.	2003	Rs.500/-
79.	Compaq Laptop	2009	Rs.53,000/-
80.	Coins-5 Nos	-	Rs.40,000/-
81.	Princess Pearl Set	2007	Rs.2,490/-
82.	Two pairs of Gold Bangles (4 nos) 43.5 gms	2003	Rs.26,100/-
83.	Two pairs of gold Bangles (4 nos) 44.5 gms	2005	Rs.31,150/-
84.	Two pairs of gold Bangles(4 nos) 44.5 gms	2005	Rs.31,150/-
85.	One pair of gold bangles (2 nos) 20.5 gms	2005	Rs.14,350/-
86.	One pair of gold bangles (4 nos) 40 gms	2001	22,000/-
87.	One pair of gold bangles (2 nos) 17 gms	2001	Rs.9,350/-
88.	One Gold Chain-18 gms	2001	Rs.9,900/-
89.	One Gold Necklace-15.5 gms	2002	Rs.8,990/-

¶69

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶70

Sl.N	Movable Assets Year of Value of the Remarks
o	acquisi tion assets as per in (Rs.)
90.	One Gold Necklace-40.5 gms 2003 Rs.24,300/-
91.	One Gold Necklace-35.5 gms 2002 Rs.22,590/-
92.	One small gold Necklace-20 gms 2002 Rs.11,600/-
93.	Two Nos. of bracelets 31 gms 2002 Rs.17,988/-
94.	One gold Necklace 27.5 gms 2003 Rs.15,950/-
95.	One gold Necklace 50 gms 2002 Rs.29,000/-
96.	One Small Gold Necklace 9 gms 2002 Rs.5,220/-
97.	Cash seized from the residence of accused 2009 Rs.804,000/-
	during searches
	Total Rs.1,610,248 /-
Other deposi Sl.No	ts found to have been made Description of deposit Value
.	(in Rs.)
1.	Bank balance in SB A/c. No.52099792812 in the name of Capt. Misra with State Bank of Hyderabad, Berhampur. Rs.663,882/-
2.	FD A/c in the name of Alaka Misra No.62007897104 with State Bank of Rs.60,000/-
	Hyderbad, Berhampur on 05.01.1994.
3.	FD A/c in the name of Alaka Misra no. 62019084071 with State Bank of Hyderabad, Berhampur on 04.08.1994. Rs.100,000/-
4.	FD A/c in the name of Alaka Misra No. 62024926205 with State Bank of Hyderbad, Berhampur on 30.10.1991 Rs.50,000/-
5.	FD A/c in the name of Alaka Misra No. 52099812922 with state Bank of Hyderabad, Berhampur on 23.06.1993 Rs.40,000/-

¶71

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶72

Sl.No .	Description of deposit	Value (in Rs.)
6.	FD A/c in the name of Capt. Priyanath Misra no.52099822179 with State Bank of Hyderabad, Berhampur on 12.07.1993.	Rs.100,000/-
7.	FD A/c in the name of Capt. Priyanath Misra no.52099822168 with State Bank of Hyderabad, Berhampur on 09.06.1998.	Rs.100,000/- `
8.	FD A/c in the name of Alaka Misra No.62031708517 with State Bank of Hyderabad, Berhampur on 03.05.2001.	Rs.200,000/-
9.	“ 7 years and 8 months Kisan Vikas Patra” for Rs.10,000/- each bearing Sl.No.97 CC 767237 to Sl.No. 97 CC 767246 dated 27.04.2002 issued by Medical College Sub Post Office, Berhampur in the names of Smt.Alaka Misra and Capt. Priyanath Misra	Rs.100,000/-
10.	Balance in the post Office Saving account No.3038106 in Medical College Campus, Sub-post Office, Berhampur in the name of Capt.Priyanath Misra and Alaka Misra	Rs.87,927/-
11.	Balance in MIS Nos.364723 to 364726 (Rs.50,000/- in each Scheme) in Medical College Campus, Sub-Post	Rs.200,000/-
	Office, Berhampur in the names of Capt.Priyanath Misra and Alaka Misra
12.	Investment in NSCs (No.VIII issue 66 EE 814316 66 EE 814327) dated 13.01.2005 issued by GPO, Chennai in the name of Capt. Priyanath Misra.	Rs.120,000/-
13.	Term Deposit (RIP) Account No.0286100018267 in the name of Ms Pranathi Sudha Misra, opened on 05.09.2001 in United Bank of India,	Rs.700,000/-
	Armenian Street, Chennai.
14.	Term Deposit (RIP) Account No.0286100018755 in the name of Ms Pranathana Misra, opened on 08.09.2004 in United Bank of India, Armenian Street, Chennai.	Rs.500,000/-
15.	Term Deposit (RIP) Account No.0286100015951 in the name of Ms Pranathana Misra, Capt. Priyanath	Rs.522,500/-
	Misra and Smt.Alaka Misra opened on
	10.09.2005 in United Bank of India, Armenian Street, Chennai.

¶73

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶74

Sl.No .	Description of deposit	Value (in Rs.)
16.	Term Deposit (RIP) Account No.0286100015942 in the name of Ms. Pranathi Sudha Misra, opened on 10.09.2005 in United Bank of India, Armenian Street, Chennai	Rs.313,500/-
17.	Balance in the SB account- 61512200001826- of Capt. Priyanath Misra with Syndicate Bank, Tuticorn	Rs.714,299/-
18.	Balance in the SB account of Capt.Priyanath Misra-60002010049043- with Syndicate Bank, Armenian Street, Chennai	Rs.2,262,824 /-
19.	Investment in BNP Paribas Tax Saver Open Ended Fund through CAMS, Chennai in the name of Capt. Priyanath Misra	Rs.30,000/-
20.	Investment in VCC in Syndicate Bank, Kolkotta, by Capt. Priyanath Misra No.9792.405.418/2 for Rs.85,000/-	Rs.85,000/-
21.	Investment in VCC in Syndicate Bank, Kolkotta, by Capt. Priyanath Misra No.9792.405.421/2 for Rs.85,000/-	Rs.85,000/-
22.	Investment in VCC in Syndicate Bank, Kolkotta, by Smt.Alaka Misra No.9792.417.43/2 for Rs.80,000/-	Rs.80,000/-
23.	Investment in VCC in Syndicate Bank, Kolkotta, by Smt.Alaka Misra No.9792.417.157/2 for Rs.80,000/-	Rs.80,000/-
24.	Investment in VCC in Syndicate Bank, Kolkotta, by Smt.Alaka Misra No.9792.405.886 for Rs.100,000/-	Rs.100,000/-
25.	Investment in VCC in Syndicate Bank, Kolkotta, by Smt.Alaka Misra No.9792.417.30/2 for Rs.100,000/-	Rs.100,000/-
26.	Investment in VCC in Syndicate Bank, Kolkotta, by Smt.Alaka Misra No.9792.417.26/2 for Rs.100,000/-	Rs.100,000/-
	Total	Rs.7,494,932 /-

¶75

Total of assets at the end of the check period is Rs.8,97,000 + Rs.16,10,248/- + Rs.74,94,932/-= Rs.1,00,02,180/-

¶76

Statement-C INCOME DURING THE CHECK PERIOD

¶77

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶78

Sl.No	Details of Income	Amount in Rs.
1.	Income by way of salary	Rs.5,045,057/-
2.	Interest in Investment in NSCs-no.22 EE 744860 to 744865 of the vale of Rs.10,000/- each and one NSC of the Value of Rs.5,000/- purchased in GPO, Calcuatta in 1998 encashed at GPO, Chennai in 2005	Rs.65,975/-
3.	Bonus received from Monthly Income Schemes (MIS) nos.360164 to 360165 in Berhampur Head Post Office	Rs.15,000/-
4.	Bonus received from Monthly Income Schemes(MIS) nos.361213 to 361215 in Berhampur Head Post Office.	Rs.15,000/-
5.	Monthly Interest received from Monthly Income Schemes (MIS Nos.360164 to 360165 in Berhampur Head Post Office.	Rs.21,125/-.
6.	Monthy Interest received in Monthly Income Shemes (MIS Nos.361213 to 361215 in Berhampur Head Post Office.	Rs.28,512/-
7.	Monthly Interest from Monthly Income Schemes (MIS) Nos. 364723 to 364726 in Berhampur Head Post Office.	Rs.34,632/-
8.	Interest on investment in BNP Paribas Tax Saver Open Ended Fund Through	Rs.26,732/-
	CAMS, Chennai.
9.	Rental Income from Project “Rushikulya CADA”in Lane-13, Gajpati Nagar, Berhampur, Orissa.	Rs.302,400/-
10.	Rental Income from house in Lane- 1,Gajapati Nagar, Berhampur, Orissa.	Rs.330,000/-
	Total Income	Rs.5,884,433/-

¶79

Statement-D EXPENDITURE DURING THE CHECK PERIOD

¶80

Sl.No	Detai	ls of Income	Amount in Rs.
1.	Household expens of Gross Income	es at the rate of 1/3^rd	Rs.2,522,232 /-
2.	Expenditure incu	rred in the payment of	Rs.182,285
	premia of LIC	Endowment Policy Nos.-
	716408472 and	716405782 of Capt.
	Priyanath Misra respectively	and Smt.Alaka Misra

¶81

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶82

Sl.No	Details of Income	Amount in Rs.
3.	Income Tax paid by the accused during the check period	Rs.1,499,791 /-
4.	Professional Tax paid by the accused during the check period	Rs.11,175/-
5.	Income Tax for the period April to June 2009 on the fee received for conducting exams	Rs.46,050/-
6.	Professional Tax for the period April to June 2009.	Rs.1,382/-
7.	Expenditure on the education of Ms.Prarthana Sudha Misra in Chinmaya Mission School, Anna Nagar Chennai in Classes-LKG to VII	Rs.106,945/-
8.	Expenditure on the education of Ms.Pranathi Sudha Misra in Chinmaya Mission School, Anna Nagar, Chennai in Classes- IV to VI	Rs.22,920/-
9.	Expenditure on the education of Ms.Pranathi Sudha Misra in Rishi Valley School, Chittor District, AP in Classes- VII to XII	Rs.694,427/-
10	Expenditure on the Education of Ms.Pranathi Sudha Misra in SRM	Rs.218,000/-
	University
11.	Expenditure towards boarding and care including expenditure of attendance for Abhilash Misra in Cadabam's Kuteeram, Bangalore.	Rs.2,559,435 /-
	Total Expenditure	Rs.7,864,642 /-

¶83

The calculation of disproportionate asset as per the prosecution is as under;

¶84

Assets period	at the beginning (statement-A)	of the check Rs.29,44,423/-
Assets (Statem	at the end of ent-B)	the check period Rs.1,00,02,180 /-
Income C)	during the check	period (Statement- Rs.58,84,433/-
Expendi -D)	ture during the	period (Statement Rs.78,64,642/-
Assets (B-A)	acquired during	the check period- Rs.70,57,586/-

¶85

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶86

Assets at the beginning of the check Rs.29,44,423/period (statement-A) Likely saving during the check period (C(-Rs.1,980,209 D) /-) Extent to which assets and expenditure are Rs.90,37,966/disproportionate to likely savings(B-A)(C-D) Percentage of disproportionate Assets over 153.59% total income of accused (B-A)-(C-D) / C

¶87

After trial, the Court below giving due consideration of the explanation given by the accused, arrived the disproportionate asset as below;

¶88

Assets at the beginning of the Check Rs.29,44,423/period. Statement-A

¶89

Assets at the end of the check period. Rs.97,02,180/Statement-B

¶90

Assets acquired during the check period Rs.67,57,757/(2-1)

¶91

Expenditure during the check period Rs.70,14,096/Statement-D

¶92

Total assets/pecuniary resources possessed Rs.1,37,71,853 by the accused (3+4) /-

¶93

Income during the check period. StatementRs.59,41,457/C

¶94

Disproportionate assets(5-6) Rs.78,30,396/Percentage of disproportionate assets over 131.79% total of income (7/6 x 100)

¶95

After hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and the Special Public Prosecutor along with the statements produced by the counsel for the appellant where he has dispute the prosecution case, this Court finds that there is not error in rejecting the explanation for the source of Rs.8,04,000/- from the residence of the appellant during the house search.

¶96

Ex.P.108 which is the diary extract recovered from the residence of the appellant and the explanation given by him for the secret code leading to recovery of money kept concealed in various places of the house goes to show that the money recovered was received by the appellant from 3^rd party and not properly accounted. The explanations given by the appellant as well as DW.1 to DW.3 no-where match or satisfy that this money was given by them to the appellant to met out his daughter's educational expenditure.

¶97

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶98

The submission made by the learned Counsel regarding the value of the jewellery found in the locker during inventory and non assessment of the value by competent assessor also does not carry any merit. In view of the fact that Ex.P.29 the locker proceedings conducted on 10.08.2009 at State Bank of Hyderabad, Berhampur Orissa was done in the presence of the appellant and the value of the each item of the properties is shown against the description. Because it was not valued by assessor, the appellant cannot say it is “Nil” value and Rs.12,98,030/- has to be excluded. This submission does not carry any merit. If the appellant had any doubt about the value mentioned in Ex.P.29 he should have objected it at the earliest point of time. He would have sought for revaluation or reassessment.

¶99

When based on the opinion of expert or document any assessment is made by the prosecution either for the income or expenditure or for the value of the property, prime face it has to be considered as correct, unless it is erroneous on the fact of it or the defence contravene the fact by reasoning or equally satisfactory evidence. In this case, the appellant has not made any attempt to re-value the jewels therefore, at this point of time questioning the valuation of the jewels found in the locker is only an after thought.

¶100

Regarding the investments, this Court finds no error in the assessment made by the prosecution. The appellant cannot take claim all of his investments made in the State Bank and Post office as investment made out of interest accrued. We find, the investments made by the appellant during the check period are not entirely from the income accrued from his investments made prior to check period. It is to be pointed out that in State Bank of Hyderabad, Berhampur, the appellant was holding a Savings Bank account No.5209979812. At the beginning of the check period he had Rs.1,32,758/-. At the end of the check period the balance was Rs.6,63,882/-. The statements of account Ex.P.20 commences from 28.07.1999 with balance of Rs.85,52,790/-. On commencement of the check period dated 01.04.2000 the balance found in his account was Rs.1,32,756/-. On 03.05.2001 a sum of Rs.2 lakhs withdrawn from his account and invested in the fixed deposits with the same bank in the name of Tmt. Alaka Mishra wife of the appellant. After this withdrawal, they had been several transactions and at the end of the check period it is found that the balance in the said account is of Rs.6,63,681.91. The statement of account reveals periodical deposits into this account. It is contended by the appellant that the deposits are the rental income of his immovable property which are shown item 1 and 2 of statements-A.

¶101

The prosecution has taken note of the rental income of Rs.6,32,400/- from out of this rental income it would be seen

¶102

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶103

that on 03.05.2001 he has withdrawn a sum of Rs.2 lakhs and deposited in the name of his wife which investments is found in the entry 8 under the caption 'other deposits' under “StatementB”. The Trial Court has taken note of this fact and given credit of Rs.2 lakhs and it has been discussed in the Trial Court judgment at paragraph 31 and 32.

¶104

There is some explanation and justification given by the appellant that entry 14 under the same caption, term deposit of Rs.5 lakhs dated 08.09.2004 in United Bank of India, Araminan Street in the name of Prathana Misra has been re-invested on 10.09.2005 for a sum of Rs.5,22,500/-. Having taken subsequent reinvestment, the earlier investment ought not to have taken into account. This has lead to double entry. Though as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that entry 14 and 15 are repetition of one investment made on 08.09.2004, the appellant had not accounted the source of his investments of Rs.5 lakhs in term deposit dated 08.09.2004 which has accrued interest and later reinvested on 10.09.2005, the source of that 1^st investment [14^th entry] not been properly explained or accounted for. Therefore either one of the investment has to be deleted. The 15^th entry of Rs.5,22,500/- which is subsequent and higher in value is therefore deleted.

¶105

Under the expenditure column, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that a sum of Rs.15,58,398/- is taken into account as expenses incurred for payment of income tax and professional tax. The said amount has already been deducted as tax at source and while computing the salary income of the appellant the net income of Rs.50,45,057/- is exclusive of income tax. Therefore, this expenditure which already been paid from out of his gross income need not been taken as expenditure again.

¶106

Also, under the head of income Rs.65,000/- which has been refunded from Rishi Valley school to the appellant should be added to the income of the appellant during the check period.

¶107

The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that a sum of Rs.25,000/- was received as advance LIC, and not given credit into its income also needs consideration. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the interest accrued in the Monthly Interest Scheme [MIS] from 361213 to 361216 so wrongly been accounted is taken note by the Trial Court instead of considering the income of Rs.28,512/- under the Serial No.6 of income during the check period, the Trial Court has taken it as a sum of Rs.85,536/- and same is discussed in paragraph 58 of the Trial Court judgment.

¶108

Except the above said submissions all other explanation and account now put forth by the appellant through its counsel had been discussed by the Trial Court itself and rejected and there is no much material to considered the points raised by the

¶109

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶110

appellant. Except to add Rs.25,000/- received as advance from LIC and Rs.65,000/- refund from Rishi Valley school which should be taken into account under the income head and to delete, the expenditure towards income tax and professional Tax shown in serial No.3 to 6 accounting to Rs.15,58,398/-.

¶111

The only omission in the income could be Rs.25,000/received from LIC and Rs.65,000/- received from Rishi Valley school as refund which would be seen from Ex.P.103 and Ex.P.105. Therefore, to the income during the check period as found by the Trial Court additional sum of Rs.90,000/- added and reassessed as Rs.60,31,457/-. The expenditure during the check period, the Trial Court has assessed as Rs.70,14,096/-. Out of which, the income Tax and professional tax paid and already been deducted from the salary. The net salary alone is taken into account for calculating the disproportionate assets. So, once again the income tax and professional tax paid need not been brought under the expenditure head. If this amount is deducted from the expenditure as assessed by the Trial Court, the expenditure of the appellant during the check period will come down to Rs.55,55,698/-. Therefore, the calculation of disproportionate of the asset case after re-assessment taking into omissions pointed out by the appellant, the final assessment will be as under: Asset at the beginning of the Check period Rs.29,44,423/Statement-A Asset at the end of the Check period Rs.97,02,180/Statement-B Income during the Check period Statement-C Rs.60,31,457/Expenditure during the Check period Rs.55,55,698/Statement-D Percentage of disproportionate assets over 103% total of income

¶112

Even after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, we find that the asset acquired by the appellant during the check period is Rs.67,57,757/-. The expenditure he has incurred during the check period excluding income tax and professional tax is Rs.55,55,698/- while the known source of income including his net salary and income accrued through interest and bonus is Rs.60,31,457/-. Thus, after incurring expenses from the known source of income he could have saved hardly of Rs.5 lakhs at the most. Whereas his investments indicate that he has acquired assets around Rs.67 lakhs, which is 103% disproportionate to his known source of income.

¶113

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶114

The possession of assets is not a crime but possessing asset by a Government Servant without proper accounting is offence. Ex.P.17 is the statement of the accused regarding the possession of the assets held by him. This voluntary statement was given by the appellant in response to query raised during the investigation. This statement has to be compared with Ex.P.14 the property statement given by the appellant for the year 2001 in Compliance to his Service Rules. The comparison will show that most of the properties which have been found during the investigation were not disclosed by the appellant to the authorities. In addition the income tax returns which are relied by the prosecution also indicates the appellant has not disclosed adequate income to the Income Tax authority which could satisfactorily account for the assets held by him.

¶115

The learned Counsel for the appellant rely upon the bank accounts in which interest has accrued and attempt to justify the investments were made from out of the interest accrued. However, how the investments in the bank were made to earn interest not been explained by the appellant. It has neither been disclosed by him his employer nor disclose to the income tax authorities. In the absence of such discloser, it should be construed that the asset held by the appellant has not been satisfactorily accounted. Therefore, this Court has no hesitance to uphold the judgment of the Trial Court which has thoroughly scrutinize the evidence of the prosecution as well as the defence.

¶116

Except few omissions and duplication which has been pointed out in this appeal, there is no error in the trial Court judgment and those omission also does not help the case of the appellant to satisfactorily account the asset held by him. Therefore, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and conviction passed by the IX Additional Special Judge for C.B.I Cases, Chennai dated 13.10.2015 is hereby confirmed.

¶117

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶118

bsm

¶119

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶120

¶121