Patna High Court (G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J.), Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 46 of 2003, decided 29-01-2025: Appeal by Banke Bihari Rai against conviction under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (corresponding to Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the 1988 Act) and three years' rigorous imprisonment imposed by the Special Judge, CBI, South Bihar, Patna (Special Case No. 01 of 1983/RC No. 39 of 1982, dated 12.12.2002) for possessing assets of Rs. 3,48,064.89 against likely savings of Rs. 1,13,651.93 during the check period December 1969 to May 1982, leaving Rs. 2,34,412.96 unexplained. Held, allowing the appeal and acquitting: (i) the Section 20 presumption is confined to acceptance of illegal gratification and does not apply to a disproportionate-assets case, so the accused need not prove his innocence; (ii) the valuation evidence was unreliable - PW-7 issued the jewellery Valuation Report (Exhibit-6) without personally inspecting the ornaments, with carat quality and purchase dates unexplained; PW-9's building Valuation Report (Exhibit-8) omitted quantities of materials and price indices; the salary details (Exhibit-12) showed unexplained variations; the land document (Exhibit-11) was marked through a witness ignorant of it and the endorsing Circle Officer was not examined; the inventory valuations (Exhibit-4) were unexplained; (iii) the fardbeyan and FIR were not produced and the informant was not examined; the third floor was constructed in 1983, beyond the check period; no evidence connected the house or land to the appellant; the defence evidence (DWs 1-7) was found satisfactory. The prosecution having failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, benefit of doubt was extended to the appellant; conviction and sentence were set aside and the bail bond cancelled. Relying on Narabada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Jaiswal (2003) 8 SCC 745, Jagmail Singh v. Karamjit Singh (2020) 5 SCC 178, Ramji Dayawala and Sons v. Invest Import (1981) 1 SCC 80, Birad Mal Sanghvi v. Anand Purohit 1988 Supp SCC 604, Noor Hasan v. State of Bihar (Pat HC) and Sukhi Yadav v. State of Bihar 2014 SCC OnLine Pat 5721, the Court reiterated that mere production and marking of a document as an exhibit does not prove its contents.
