APHC010289602006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3368]

THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 1461/2006

Between:

1. K.OBI REDDY,, SANITARY INSPECTOR, ANANTHAPUR

MUNICIPALITY, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT.

...APPELLANT

AND

1. THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD ACB INSP OF

POLICE, rep. by its Spl. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at

Hyderabad, through the Inspector of Police ACB. Ananthapur

District.

...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. O KAILASHNATH REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. S. SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB

The Court made the following:

2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 1461 OF 2006

J U D G M E N T:

Heard Sri O.Kailashnath Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri S.Syam Sunder Rao, learned Special Public

Prosecutor-cum-Standing Counsel representing the respondent/ACB.

2. The appeal is preferred by the convict/accused, challenging the

judgment dated 19.10.2006 delivered by the Additional Special Judge

for SPE & ACB Cases at Hyderabad, in C.C.No.13/1997.

3. The appellant is the accused in the case. The Special Judge

convicted the appellant for the offence U/secs.13(1)(e)r/w.13(2) of the

P.C.Act, 1988 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a

period of two (02) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten

Thousand only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period

of six (06) months for the above offence.

4. For convenience’s sake, the parties are referred to as arraigned

in the trial Court.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION :

5. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/accused

worked as Sanitary Inspector in the office of Ananthapur Munipality

from 23.07.1974 to 27.10.1994 in various capacities. The accused

being a public servant, acquired assets disproportionate to the known

3

sources of his income. Therefore, he committed the offence

punishable U/s.13(1)(e) of the P.C.Act, 1988.

6. The accused was in possession of assets worth of

Rs.8,15,532.70 paise during the above check period. The income of

the appellant was Rs.4,42,193.50 paise. The expenditure incurred was

Rs.3,57,287.80 paise. Therefore, likely savings of the accused is

Rs.84,905.70 paise, but the appellant had assets worth of

Rs.7,30,627/- i.e., disproportionate to his known sources of income.

The accused could not satisfactorily account for, though he was given

opportunity. The Government accorded sanction for prosecution of the

appellant.

7. The Special Court charged the accused for the offence

U/s.13(1)(e) r/w.13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988. The charge was explained

to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION :

8. The prosecution to substantiate the charge, examined P.Ws-1 to

45 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-18, apart from M.O-1.

9. The accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. regarding the

incriminating circumstances appearing against him from the evidence

for the prosecution. He denied the incriminating circumstances.

D.Ws-1 to 6 were examined for the defence. Exs.D-1 to D-13 were got

marked for the defence.

4

FINDING OF THE SPECIAL COURT :

10. The Special Court on consideration of the above evidence,

convicted the accused for the offence U/s.13(1)(e) r/w.13(2) of the

P.C.Act, 1988, and sentenced him as mentioned above. Hence, the

appeal came to be preferred by the accused, challenging the judgment

of the Special Court on various grounds.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT/A CCUSED:

11. Sri O.Kailashnath Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant

would argue that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish

that the appellant possessed assets that are disproportionate to the

known sources of income. Then only, the burden shifts to accused to

provide a satisfactory account of the source.

12. He would further argue that the trial Court found that in the case

on hand, the total income of the accused during the check period is

Rs.5,44,572.50 paise even as per the case of the prosecution. The

expenditure during the check period of Rs.2,58,490/-. Likely savings

during the check period is Rs.2,86,082.50 paise. The prosecution

contends that the total assets possessed by the accused as on

27.10.1994 is Rs.6,52,071.70 paise. Therefore, disproportionate

assets to the known sources of income are Rs.3,65,989.20 paise.

Therefore, found the accused guilty of the charge.

13. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that in

the State of Andhra Pradesh, a circular memo No.700/SC-D/88-4

5

dated 13.02.1989 was issued by the Government to consider 20%

bonus over the income of the Officer and it must be added to

determine the disproportionate assets. The trial Court found that 20%

bonus on the income of Rs.5,44,572.50 paise comes to

Rs.1,08,914.50 paise. But, come to an erroneous opinion that even if

the margin of 20% on the income of the Accused Officer is increased

as per memo dated 13.02.1989 mentioned above, the Accused Officer

cannot escape the liability and determined the worth of

disproportionate assets of Rs.3,65,989.20 paise by the end of the

check period. It is an error apparent on the record. The trial Court

having found that as per memo dated 13.02.1989 mentioned above

issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the year 1989, it

should deduct a sum of Rs.1,08,914.50 paise from Rs.3,65,989.20

paise and asked the Accused Officer to satisfactorily explained or

account for the remaining amount only. Therefore, if a sum of

Rs.1,08,914.50 paise is deducted from Rs.3,65,989.20 paise, the

amount will come to Rs.2,57,074.70 paise only. The worth of

disproportionate assets would be Rs.2,57,074.70 paise.

14. The accused explained that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was

contributed by his father for house construction. But the trial Court did

not consider the same in proper perspective and rejected the same,

though accused placed evidence probable to his plea. Further, the

accused contended that the agriculture income shall be increased by

6

Rs.40,000/-. The trial Court also did not consider the same in proper

perspective, though there is ample evidence on record to accept the

contention of the accused.

15. Therefore, if a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- contributed by the father of

accused for construction of house made by the accused and a sum of

Rs.40,000/- is increased and added towards agricultural income of the

accused, the total income of the accused would come to

Rs.5,44,572.50 paise + Rs.2,40,000 = Rs.7,84,572.50 paise. Then

20% bonus shall be calculated on the said amount. It will come to

Rs.1,56,914/-. Therefore, the total income will come to Rs.9,41,486/-.

16. The expenditure as per the trial Court during the check period is

Rs.2,58,490/-. Hence, savings would be Rs.6,82,996/-. The worth of

assets possessed by the Accused Officer as determined by the trial

Court is Rs.6,52,071.70 paise. Therefore, the question of accused

having assets more than to his known sources of income would not

arise. Therefore, the judgment of the trial Court is not sustainable in

law.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/ ACB:

17. Sri S.Syam Sunder Rao, learned Special Public Prosecutor-

cum-Standing Counsel for ACB would argue that the trial Court rightly

rejected the contention of the accused regarding contribution of

Rs.2,00,000/- made by the father of the accused for construction of the

house. The trial Court also did not find any reliable evidence to accept

7

the contention of the accused about the agricultural income. Hence,

the said amount cannot be included in the income of the accused for

the check period.

18. He would further argue that even if 20% bonus as claimed by

the accused is considered, accused is in possession of assets

disproportionate to his known sources of income, as rightly observed

by the learned trial Court. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere

with the judgment of the learned trial Court.

19. In the light of above rival contentions, the points that arose for

consideration in this Criminal Appeal are as under:

1. Whether the appellant committed misconduct as a public

servant by possessing assets disproportionate to his

known sources of income that cannot be accounted for?

2. Whether there are grounds to interfere with the judgment

of the Special Court?

ANALYSIS

20. The income of the accused determined by the learned trial Court

for the check period i.e., 23.07.1974 to 27.10.1994 is Rs.5,44,572.50

paise. The contention of the accused is that his father contributed a

sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for construction of the house made by the

accused.

21. The accused examined his father as D.W-16. He deposed that

accused is his elder son. He has two more sons. Till date, they are

8

living as joint family. He inherited agricultural land in partition with

brothers. They owned Ac.3-00 wet land and Ac.6-00 of dry land. They

cultivate paddy in wet land and groundnut, red gram, green gram in

dry land. The net agricultural income of the joint family is around

Rs.3,00,000/- per annum. In addition to the cultivation, they also do

milk business since 1957. D.W-7 to milk business. He purchased milk

from them and sold the milk to the hotels at Puttaparthy. D.W-15 runs

a hotel at Kothacheruvu village. The family also sells milk to D.W-15.

Therefore, they got income from milk business would around

Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. Hence, he could contribute Rs.2,00,000/- for

construction of the house by the accused. He also contributed

Rs.2,50,000/- for construction of the house by the second son. He

constructed a house for the third son.

22. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that

the prosecution did not elicit anything in the cross-examination of

D.W-16 to say that his testimony is not true. Learned counsel for the

appellant would argue that D. Ws-7 and 15 corroborated the evidence

of D.W-16 regarding milk business and agricultural activities.

23. He would submit that the witnesses examined by the

prosecution i.e., P.W-13, P.W-19, P.W-22 and P.W-23 i.e., Village

Administrative Officer, Mandal Revenue Inspector, Mandal Revenue

Officer and Assistant Statistical Officer coupled with Ex.P-71 and P-72

produced by the prosecution would show that the joint family of the

9

accused own Acx.3-90 cents of wet land and Ac.5-00 of dry land in the

village for several years. Their evidence also would disclose that

paddy is cultivated in the wet land; commercial crops were raised in

the dry land. The evidence of Village Administrative Officer would also

establish that they are also doing milk business. But the trial Court did

not discuss the above evidence in proper perspective and therefore,

came to an erroneous opinion.

24. P.W-19 evidence would show that he was working as Village

Administrative Officer at Kothacheruvu village, and he knows the

family members of the Accused Officer and their properties. During his

evidence, certain Adangals were marked regarding properties of the

Accused Officer’s family. P.W-19 in the cross-examination deposed

that father and mother of accused owns Ac.3-69 cents of wet land and

Ac.5-08 cents of dry land. The lands are fertile lands. They are owning

the lands for several years. They are raising groundnut in dry lands.

They also raising red gram and green gram crops, apart from red

gram. The wetlands are situated near Bukkapatnam tank. They are

irrigated with the water of the tank. They cultivate paddy in the

wetlands. The average yield is 30 to 32 bags of paddy per acre. Each

bag is of 80 KGs weight. He also categorically admitted that they

supplied milk to Kothacheruvu hotels. The family is a joint family, which

includes the Accused Officer.

10

25. P.W-22 is Mandal Revenue Inspector at Kothacheruvu village.

He produced rainfall certificate under Ex.P-70 and agricultural income

statement of the accused from fasli 1385 to 1387, 1391, 1393 to 1395,

1397 to 1403. He also produced Ex.P-72 abstract of agriculture

income derived by the accused from 1974-1975 to 1993-1994 as

Rs.1,84,085/-. During cross-examination, he admitted that there is no

mention in Ex.P-67 that it was prepared as per office records. He did

not produce the records, on which Ex.P-68 was prepared. He also

admitted that he did not prepare the particulars mentioned in Exs.P-69

and P-70. He also admitted that he has no personal knowledge about

the person, who furnished the particulars under Ex.P-70. There is no

mention in Exs.P-69 and P-70 about the records, on which the

particulars are mentioned. He admitted that the Municipal Rainfall

Particulars are maintained by the Assistant Statistical Officer in the

office of Chief Planning Officer. There is no proforma as shown in

Ex.P-71 maintained in their office. He admitted that he did not work at

Kothacheruvu Mandal in the year 1974-1975 to 1993-1994. They have

no personal knowledge about the prevailing rates at Kothacheruvu

during that period.

26. P.W-23 is the Mandal Revenue Officer of Thadimarri Mandal at

the relevant point in time. He deposed that Ex.P-70 is Rainfall

Certificate from 1989 to 1995. Ex.P-71 is agriculture income estimated

by him for the period from 1975-1976 to 1993-1994. The Assistant

11

Statistical Officer in their office-maintained Rainfall Data. In the cross-

examination, he admitted that he has no personal knowledge about

the agriculture income of the accused’s family. There is no prescribed

format maintained similar to Ex.P-71 in their office. It was prepared as

per records maintained by Assistant Statistical Officer. He admitted

that the Assistant Statistical Officer is not a signatory to Ex.P-71. He

admitted that the Assistant Statistical Officer maintained the record is

still in service. The original records based on which Ex.P-71 was

prepared are not produced before the Court.

27. P.W-24 is the Statistical Officer in the Office of Directorate of

Economics and Statistics. He deposed that Ex.P-74 letter dated

03.08.1995 was furnished about the particulars of average yield of

paddy and groundnut in Ananthapur District from the years 1974-1975

to 1993-1994 and statement is a general statement. He did not

prepare the statement. It was not prepared in his presence. He has no

personal knowledge about the contents of Ex.P-74.

28. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that no

reliance can be placed on the documents, particularly, Exs.p-71 and

P-72 produced by the prosecution in the light of evidence of P.W-19,

P.W-22, P.W-23 and P.W-24. They admitted that they have no

personal knowledge about the contents of the said documents. They

did not prepare the said documents. They say that the statements

under Exs.P-71 and P-72 were prepared based on records maintained

12

by the Assistant Statistical Officer and others. They admitted that the

persons, who prepared those statements did not sign on the said

statements. They were not examined as witnesses to prove the

contents that the abstracts were prepared based on original records in

the office, which cannot conveniently produce before the Court. In

those circumstances, no value can be attached to those documents to

consider the agriculture income of the Accused Officer during the

check period, as claimed by the prosecution. But the trial Court did not

consider the contention of the defence in proper perspective and came

to an erroneous opinion regarding the agriculture income as well as

the contribution made by the father of the accused for construction of

the house. Simply on the ground that there is no documentary

evidence produced by D.W-16 and on the ground that P.W-24

produced statistical data of the agriculture income as Rs.60,000/-

during the check period and therefore, the contention of the accused

cannot be accepted.

29. He would further submit that those statements produced through

P.Ws-23 and 24 are not admissible U/s.65(g) of the Indian Evidence

Act, as person/Officer, who prepared they was not examined by the

prosecution. The witnesses examined by the prosecution admitted that

they have no personal knowledge about the data found in the original

records, and they did not prepare Exs.P-71 and P-72. The persons,

who prepared the said statements also did not sign on the said

13

documents, certifying that they are prepared based on the original

records.

30. The learned Special Public Prosecutor-cum-Standing Counsel

for ACB would argue that as per section 65(g) of the Indian Evidence

Act, the evidence may be given as to the general result of the

document examined by any person, who is skilled in the examination

of said document. The evidence of P.W-23 would show that Ex.P-71

was prepared after due enquiries and based on office records.

Ex.P-71 is admissible in evidence, since it was proved by P.W-23.

31. The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of

Vasam Hari Babu Vs. Vasam Veeraraghavamma

1

, held that “there

may be public documents, which cannot conveniently be produced

before the Court, the information contained in such documents is

nothing but an abstract of information gathered from various public

documents to be maintained by the Educational Institutions.

Therefore, if a document prepared from various other documents, they

cannot be considered as copies of the public documents. But, abstract

of the same and is, therefore, admissible under clause (g) of Section

65”.

32. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the

above judgment makes it clear that the evidence may be given as a

general result of the documents by any person, who has examined

1

2001(2) ALD 481

14

them and who is skilled in examination of such documents. But, in the

case on hand, P.Ws-23 and 24 categorically admitted that they have

no personal knowledge about the contents of the documents. They did

not prepare the abstract under Exs.P-71 and P-72. The persons, who

maintained the documents is Assistant Statistical Officer. He did not

sign on the said documents. He was not examined by the prosecution.

Therefore, the judgment relied on by the prosecution will not help the

case of the prosecution to contend that Ex.P-71 or Ex.P-72 are proved

in accordance with law, to accept their probative value as true and

correct.

33. In the light of rival submissions mentioned above, the dispute

confined to two aspects. One is non-inclusion of a sum of Rs.2,00,000-

in the income of the appellant towards contribution made by his father

at the time of construction of the house. Second is regarding in-correct

evaluation of agriculture income of the appellant.

34. The trial Court on consideration of the evidence, determined the

income of the accused during the check period as Rs.5,44,572.50

paise. The accused contended that his father contributed a sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- for construction of the house, as the father and brothers

of the accused are living as joint family. The father contributed a sum

of Rs.2,50,000/- for construction of house by the brother of the

accused. He also got constructed a house for the other brother of the

accused.

15

35. The accused to probable his plea, examined his father as

D.W-16. He deposed about the agriculture lands owned by joint family

income received on the agriculture lands and milk business carried on

by the family. He deposed that he contributed Rs.2,50,000/- for

construction of the house by the second son. He also constructed a

house for third son. He contributed Rs.2,00,000/- for construction of

the house by the elder son i.e., accused. The trial Court did not accept

the testimony of D.W-16 on the ground that no documentary evidence

is placed on record for contribution of the amount.

36. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the

joint family of the accused, his father and brothers’ hail from village.

They live on agriculture and milk business. The evidence of Village

Administrative Officer (P.W-19) of the village would prove the same.

The joint family is having considerable income on agriculture lands and

milk business for several years. No regular accounts can be expected

from a person living on agriculture and maintaining cattle in the village,

which is not a commercial activity to expect accounts as maintained by

business people.

37. The evidence of Village Administrative Officer (P.W-19), Mandal

Revenue Inspector (P.W-22), Mandal Revenue Officer (P.W-23) and

other witnesses proved that the family of accused, his father and

brothers is a joint family. The joint family is having income from

wetlands, dry lands and on milk business.

16

38. D.W-16 on oath categorically deposed that he contributed

amount for construction of the house by all his sons. Nothing was

elicited in the cross-examination to jettison his testimony before the

Court. No contra evidence is available on record to say that he has no

such capacity to contribute amount.

39. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dudh Nath Pandey

V. State of U.P.

2

, held that “the evidence of the defence witness shall

also be considered on par with the prosecution witnesses”. In the case

on hand, the trial Court simply brushed aside the testimony of the

father of the accused on the ground that no documentary evidence is

placed on record to prove the contribution. Hence, the said fining of

the trial Court is not based on evidence, and therefore, the said finding

is not sustainable either on facts or in law.

40. It is true P.W-19 Village Administrative Officer admitted that

accused, his father and brothers are living as joint family. The

evidence of P.W-19, Mandal Revenue Inspector (P.W-22) and Mandal

Revenue Officer (P.W-23) would also discloses that their family owned

wet lands, dry lands, they are cultivating paddy and commercial crops

for several years during the check period. The evidence of Village

Administrative Officer would also show that the joint family is also

having milching cattle and selling milk to nearby hotels located near

four road junction of the village. These facts and circumstances would

2

AIR 1981 SC 911

17

establish that the accused, his father and brothers are living as joint

family owns agriculture lands and milching cattle and earning

considerable income on agriculture and milk business in the village

even prior to the date of check period.

41. The father of accused was examined before the trial Court. On

oath, he made a statement about the contribution of amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- at the time of construction of the house by the accused,

as he contributed amounts to other sons also at the time of

construction of their houses. It is a common in joint families living in

villages.

42. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, the

farmers in the village will earn livelihood on agriculture and milching

cattle. Generally, they will not maintain any accounts as maintained by

businesspeople doing commercial activities. Therefore, merely

because no accounts are placed before the trial Court, the evidence

mentioned above cannot be brushed aside on the sole ground that no

accounts are placed to prove the contribution. All the circumstances

coming forth from the evidence shall be considered, before brushing

aside the statement of father of the accused. Nothing was elicited in

the cross-examination of D.W-16 i.e., father of accused to say that he

suppressed the truth, made inconsistent statements, contrary to the

former statements. Therefore, the evidence of Village Administrative

Officer (P.W-19), Mandal Revenue Inspector (P.W-22), Mandal

18

Revenue Officer (P.W-23) coupled with the evidence of the father of

the accused, plea of the accused is probable.

43. It is settled law that accused need not prove his plea beyond

reasonable doubt. If the evidence placed on record would show that

the plea of the accused is also probable, in the circumstances of the

case, it cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, the opinion of the trial

Court rejecting the plea of the accused is not based on evidence.

Hence, it is not sustainable either on facts or in law. In that view of the

mater, this Court is of the considered opinion that a sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- shall be included in the income of the accused, during

the check period towards contribution made by his father for

construction of the house.

44. When coming to the agriculture income of the accused

determined in the case, the prosecution case is that the agriculture

income of the accused during the check period is Rs.46,021/-. It is

based on the evidence of P.W-45, who prepared Ex.P-110 relying on

the rates of agriculture produce furnished by P.W-21 and P.W-24.

45. The contention of the accused is that the agriculture income was

not properly considered by the Investigation Officer inspite of his

explanation;;The trial Court also failed to determine the same in proper

perspective on the ground that no documentary evidence produced by

the accused that his father cultivated lands on lease of others; The

trial Court based its finding on inadmissible documents, and evidence

19

of P.Ws-23 and 24, though they are not the authors of Exs.P-71 and

P.72; Therefore, trail Court considered the agriculture income

erroneously at Rs.60,000/- only during the check period, which is on

lower side when compared to the actual income received from the

agriculture lands and milk business carried on by the joint family of the

accused; Therefore, trial Court ought to have included further sum

Rs.40,000/- at least, towards agriculture income of the accused basing

on the prevailing rates of agriculture produce and milk, at the relevant

point in time i.e., during the check period.

46. The trial Court observed that the prosecution to prove the

agriculture income, examined P.W-19, P.W-22 and P.W-23. The trial

Court observed that P.W-45 i.e., Investigation Officer admitted that

accused is a member of joint family of his father and brothers. P.W-19

i.e., Village Administrative Officer also admitted the said fact. He also

admitted that the joint family owns Ac.3-69 cents of wet land and Ac.5-

08 cents of dry land. They used to cultivate paddy in wetlands and

commercial crops i.e., groundnut, red gram, green gram etc., were

cultivated in the dry lands during the check period and before by the

joint family.

47. P.W-23/Mandal Revenue Officer was examined by the

prosecution to prove the estimated agriculture income during the

check period basing on rainfall and rates of paddy and pulses at the

relevant point in time. P.W-23 relied on Exs.P-71 and P-72.

20

48. The contention of the accused is that Exs.P-71 and P-72 are

inadmissible in evidence. They are not proved in accordance with law.

The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the

prosecution produced Exs.P-71 and P-72 as if they are the general

result of the documents maintained by concerned officials, who

examined them and skilled in the examination of such documents on

the request of P.W-23. The prosecution did not examine the

concerned officials i.e., Statistical Officer, who maintained the relevant

registers of rainfall and Agriculture Officer, who maintained the market

prices of paddy and pulses during the check period. The prosecution

did not examine the persons, who prepared the general result of the

records i.e., Exs.P-71 and P-72. P.Ws-23 and 24 admitted that they

have no personal knowledge about the general result covered by

Exs.P-71 and P-72. They also admitted that they did not verify or

compare Exs.P-71 and P-72 with original records. They admitted that

the concerned officials, who examined the original records and

prepared Exs.P-71 and P-72 did not attest Exs.P-71 and P-72

documents. They admitted that they are working in the office at the

time of trial, and available to the Court, to prove the said documents.

But the prosecution did not choose to examine the persons, who

maintained the records or the persons, who verified the records having

skill to examine such records and preparation of Exs.P-71 and P-72.

Therefore, Exs.P-71 and P-72 will not fall under the purview of section

21

65(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The trial Court unfortunately

did not consider this legal aspect and relied on those documents and

rejected the contention of the accused. Hence, the finding of the trial

Court regarding agriculture income of the accused is against the facts

and in law and is not sustainable.

49. The contention of the accused is that his joint family was having

income of Rs.3,00,000/- during the check period and the joint family

was also doing milk business. Therefore, the agriculture income of the

accused would be not less than Rs.2,50,000/- during the check period.

But the trial Court erroneously enhanced it to Rs.60,000/- only.

50. As already mentioned above, learned Special Public Prosecutor-

cum-Standing Counsel for respondent/ACB vehemently argued that

Exs.P-71 and P-72 would come under the purview of section 65(g) of

the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and they are admissible in evidence in

the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Vasam Hari Babu

Vs. Vasam Veeraraghavamma . This Court in the above case,

considered section 65(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and

observed that “if a document is prepared drawing information from

various other documents, may be the public documents, which cannot

conveniently be produced before the Court, the information contained

in such documents is nothing but an abstract information gathered

from various public documents to be maintained by the institutions. In

such circumstances, although the information contained in the public

22

document is gathered, they cannot be considered as copies of public

documents but an abstract of the same and is, therefore, admissible

under clause (g) of Section 65”.

51. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant,

P.Ws-23 and 24 are not the persons, who prepared Exs.P-71 and

P-72. They did not examine the public documents based on which,

Exs.P-71 and P-72 were prepared. The officials, who examined the

public documents maintained in the office of District Statistical Officer,

who examined the public documents maintained in their office and

prepared the abstract under Exs.P-71 and P-72, did not certify on

Exs.P-71 and P-72 that they examined the original records, and they

are having skill in the examination of such documents and Exs.P-71

and P-72 are the abstracts of the said documents.

52. P.Ws-23 and 24 in the cross-examination admitted that the

persons, who prepared Exs.P-71 and P-72 are available in their office

at the time of trial. Therefore, the prosecution failed to examine the

persons, who examined the original records and prepared general

result of the documents, to say that they are having skill in examination

of public documents, they examined the relevant public documents

and they prepared the abstract containing the general result of the

documents.

53. Admittedly, P. Ws-23 and 24 are not the persons, examined the

original public documents and prepared the abstract. In the above

23

circumstances, the prosecution did not prove Exs.P-71 and P-72 in

accordance with law, to consider Exs.P-71 and P-72 U/s.65(g) of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

54. The trial Court without considering the above aspects,

erroneously accepted Exs.P-71 and P-72, and the evidence of

P.Ws-23 and 24 and determined the agriculture income of the

Accused Officer. The trial Court enhanced the agriculture income of

the accused to Rs.60,000/- from Rs.46,021/-. No reasons are assigned

why it was enhanced to Rs.60,000/- only.

55. The evidence of P.W-19, P.W-22 and P.W-23 discussed above

would establish that the joint family of the accused, his father and

brothers own Ac.3-50 cents of wet land and Ac.5-00 of dry land for

several years well before the check period. They cultivated paddy,

commercial crops every year. They also own cattle. They sold milk to

the local hotels located near the village. it was also admitted by

P.W-19/Village Administrative Officer, a common phenomenon in the

village.

56. The contention of the accused is that his agriculture income was

not less than Rs.2,50,000/- during the check period. As already

discussed above, the joint family owns Ac.3-69 cents of wet land and

Ac.5-08 cents of dry land. They are cultivated paddy and commercial

crops, well before the check period and during the check period. They

also did milk business for several years.

24

57. Therefore, the agriculture income of the accused during the

check period i.e., his 1/4

th

share received from the joint family can be

assessed at Rs.1,00,000/-, instead of Rs.60,000/- fixed by the trial

Court. Therefore, another sum of Rs.40,000/- shall be added to the

income of the Accused Officer towards agriculture income during the

check period. Hence, if the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.40,000/- is

included in the income of the accused, during the check period, the it

will come to Rs.7,84,572.50 paise.

58. As per the memo issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh

at that time, as discussed by the trial Court, 20% of margin can be

considered on his income. Therefore, if 20% is taken into

consideration over his income, it will come to Rs.1,56,914/-.

Therefore, the total income of the accused during the check period will

be Rs.9,41,487/-. The expenses of the accused during the check

period determined by the trial Court is Rs.2,58,490/-. Hence, likely

savings of the accused will come to Rs.6,82,997/-. The total worth of

assets possessed by the Accused Offic er as on 27.10.1994

determined by the trial Court is Rs.6,52,071/-. Therefore, it would show

that the assets possessed by the Accused Officer as on 27.10.1994

are less than his income received during the check period. In that view

of the matter, the judgment of the trial Court is not sustainable either

on facts or in law.

25

CONCLUSION:

59. In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal be allowed.

RESULT:

60. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The judgment of the

Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, dated

19.10.2006 passed in C.C.No.13 of 1997 is set aside. The

appellant/Accused is acquitted for the offence U/s.13(1)(e) r/w. section

13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988. The fine amount, if any paid by the

appellant/accused, shall be refunded to him as per law. The bail bonds

of the appellant/Accused shall stand cancelled. This judgment be

certified to the trial Court, U/s.405 Cr.P.C.

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending

shall stand closed.

______________________________

JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI.

09.04.2026

PSK

26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

1

CRIMINAL APPEAL No:1461 OF 2006

Date: 09.04.2026

W

PSK