2. This Court on 23.02.2024 granted permission to the wife of the
appellant died on 23.08.2013, vide Crl.A.M.P.No.1407 of 2013.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was appointed
Officer. The CBI issued FIR on 29.08.1997, having received
assets. The house of the appellant was searched by PW.10-Inspector
of CBI along with other CBI personnel on 06.11.1997.
4. The check period is considered from 01.01.1986 to 06.11.1997
iii) the likely savings are Rs.2,79,864.35.
However, the total assets were valued at Rs.9,47,202.10. Accordingly,
the quantum of disproportion was arrived at Rs.6,67,337.75.
5. The prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 11 and the
exhibits marked were Exs.P1 to P73. In defence the appellant
examined DW.1 and marked Exs.D1 to D7.
Income:
6. The income arrived at by the prosecution is Rs.11,10,826/- and
the Court also has arrived at the income of Rs.11,10,826/-. The
income according to the accused is Rs.15,71,326/-. There is no
dispute regarding items 1 to 5 and 7 to 11 of income, as such the
items are not described. Out of 11 items of income as assessed during
investigation, item No.6 is agricultural income from lands in East
Godavari District. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW.3
and marked Ex.P16. According to the prosecution case Rs.22,750/-
was the income on agriculture which was upheld by the Court.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that
the income should have been assessed at Rs.4,60,500/-. According to
PW.3, the wife of the appellant was holding 60 cents of land in
Attamuru village. PW.3 is the MRO of Mandapeta of East Godavari
District. Ex.P6 was assessment made by her. According to Ex.P6, the
agricultural income was Rs.45,500/- for the year 1995-1996 and
1997 onwards. Learned Counsel submits that in accordance with
Ex.P16 which is a letter addressed by PW.3, the income was assessed
at Rs.45,500/- p.a. as such, for the period 1996-1997 the said
amount ought to have been multiplied accordingly and the income
would be Rs.4,60,500/-. The said amount has to be added to the
income.
8. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor would
submit that the question of making Rs.4,60,500/- during the relevant
period in 60 cents of land which was less than 1 acre is highly
improbable. Further, the learned public prosecutor submitted that in
the declaration filed by the officer under Ex.P37, he specifically stated
that the paddy and pulses from cultivation was for self consumption.
If the paddy was for self consumption as declared by the appellant,
the question of any income does not arise.
9. Having gone through the record, Ex.P37 is the statement of
immovable property as declared by the accused to his department. He
stated that he owned agricultural land at Attanuru village which he
got by inheritance and its value was Rs.1 lakh. He further declared
that he was getting paddy and pulses which was for self consumption.
10. PW.3-MRO had given Ex.P16 which is a letter addressed by
PW.3 about the agricultural land. Her assessment regarding the value
of the yield from the year 1986 to 1997 was Rs.45,500/-. In view of
the declaration of the accused to his department that the yield from
the agricultural land was for self consumption, the amount of
Rs.45,500/- can be deducted from the expenditure. However, the
income as claimed by the appellant at Rs.4,60,500/- on the
agricultural land, cannot be accepted.
Expenses:
11. The prosecution had described 19 items under expenditure.
However, except item No.16 (domestic expenditure), in respect of all
other items, there is no dispute. For the said reason, there is no
necessity to give details of all the other items. The total expenditure as
per the prosecution during check period was Rs.8,30,962/-. The
Court arrived at Rs.6,72,248/- but the accused claimed that the
expenditure was Rs.5,23,701/-.
12. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that
under item No.16 domestic expenditure, PW.10-Investigating Officer
had marked Ex.P48 which is the letter dated 10.03.1999 addressed to
the Inspector of Police, CBI by one T.Koteswara Rao, Director,
Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Hyderabad, assessing the
approximate expenditure of the accused family. According to the said
Koteswara Rao, the family expenditure was Rs.3,95,064.72 ps. On the
basis of the said approximate expenditure given for the check period
1986-1997, the prosecution after giving deductions arrived at
Rs.3,07,261/-. The Court also accepted the said amount.
13. As already stated while discussing the income aspect of the
appellant, an amount of Rs.45,500/- has to be deducted from the
expenditure due to the paddy and pulses coming from their land.
Further, the person who had given Ex.P48 i.e. the Director,
Directorate of Economics and Statistics, was not examined. The
appellant was deprived of cross-examining the person who had
assessed the family expenditure. No reason is given by the
prosecution for not examining the witness. During the course of
cross-examination of investigating officer PW.10 regarding
expenditure, it was suggested that the expenditure as arrived at by
the Directorate of Economics and Statistics under Ex.P48 was
incorrect. The Investigation Officer stated that the components of
house, children education, and electricity charges were also
considered under Ex.P48. Though, the expenditure was arrived at
Rs.3,95,064/-, the prosecution had given benefit to the extent of
Rs.3,07,261.61. Since the appellant was deprived of cross examining
the valuer from the Bureau of Economics and Statistics under
Ex.P48, reasonable reduction of 20% in the valuation of
Rs.3,07,261.61 can be considered. Accordingly, Rs.61,452.32 ps. is
reduced from the expenditure. The expenditure arrived at by this
Court is Rs.5,65,295.68 ps. [Rs.6,72,248 (total expenditure) -
1,06,952.32 (45,500 (paddy amount) + 61,452.32) = 5,65,295.68/-]
Assets:
14. There are three immovable assets and the value is not disputed
by the accused. In the movable assets the prosecution had described
21 items. The appellant had not disputed item Nos.1 to 13 and 15 to
21. The only disputed item is item 14 which pertains to miscellaneous
items found during search. Ex.P17 is the inventory report dated
06.11.1997.
15. Items 3 to 13 of the movable assets also form part of Ex.P17.
Other than the items 2 to 13, the prosecution amount of
Rs.2,18,821/- was for other miscellaneous items which include
clothes, sarees, decoration items, flower stand, dining table,
T.V.stand, wall decoration, Almirah show pieces found in two bed
rooms, wooden sofas, chairs etc. which are more than 120 items of
moveable assets narrated under Ex.P17.
16. Having gone through Ex.P17 and description of the items, it can
be assessed approximately that the valuation of the Court arrived at
Rs.2 lakhs can be reduced to Rs.1,50,000/-. Accordingly, valuation of
assets is reduced by Rs.50,000/-.
17. Assets value according to the prosecution is Rs.9,47,202/-.
However, the Court arrived at Rs.10,04,130/-. No reasons are given in
the Judgment as to why the asset value was increased from
Rs.9,47,202/- to Rs.10,04,130/-. Accordingly, the asset value as
given by the prosecution is considered and an amount of Rs.50,000/-
is deducted which comes to Rs.8,97,202/- (9,47,202-50,000)
18. In result the following are the values arrived at by this Court;
Total income is - Rs.11,10,826.60.
Total expenditure is - Rs. 5,65,295.68
Likely savings are - Rs.5,45,530.92
(11,10,826.60-5,65,295.68)
Total Assets - Rs.8,97,202/-
Total disproportion - Rs.3,51,672.08 ps.
(8,97,202 - 5,45,530.92)
19. However, the disproportion as found by this Court is
Rs.3,51,672.08 ps. as against the disproportion of the Special Court
@ Rs.6,67,337.75 ps.
20. Accordingly Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 03.01.2025
tk
