as income from the said property. Apart from these two contradictory statement by these two interested witnesses, there is no other evidence to show the rental income of the house was above Rs.900/- p.m. The trial Court has therefore accepted the rental income shown by the prosecution. While the total income during the check period was around Rs.5,57,048/-, the first appellant had spent for education of his son and daughter. Taking into consideration Ex.P12, the average consumption expenditure for a members of the family furnished by the Economics and Statistics Department, the trial has accepted the version of the prosecution about the expenditure incurred by A1, during the check period to meet out the domestic expenditure and the education expenditure of the children. His family consisting of four members viz., the public servant, his wife, his son and daughter. The expenditure during the check period is assessed as Rs.6,54,435.70 average of Rs.1,10,000/- per year. After spending for the family to meet out the day to day expenditure from out of his known source of income, the likely savings during the check period is only Rs.97,387/-. However, the accused besides spending for his family out of Rs.5,57,048/- was able to invest on the property worth Rs.11,43,145/-. The explanation from the accused through PW-8, PW-9, PW-12 and PW-
