VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

432 DECISION -176
treated as a separate item of expenditure, they could not be deducted
twice over again as part of his expenditure. This argument of the
appellant may be quite valid with regard to the sum of Rs.200, because
according to the estimate made by Shri Roberts, monthly expenditure
of the appellant might be taken to be Rs.163 and, therefore, it is
quite possible that Rs.200 might have been withdrawn by the appellant
from his bank account for meeting the household expenses. But this
argument does not appear to be valid so far as the sum of Rs.900 is
concerned, because it is difficult to believe that the appellant should
have withdrawn a sum of Rs.900 from his bank account for household
expenses when the household expenses did not exceed Rs.163 per
month. We would, therefore, reject the contention of the appellant
with regard to the sum of Rs.900 and add that as part of his
expenditure.” In this view of the matter, Supreme Court held the
sum of Rs.900 as an unexplained item of withdrawal from the bank
account of the appellant and treated it as undisclosed item of
expenditure.
Supreme Court found that as against an aggregate surplus
income of Rs.44,383.59 which was available to the appellant during
the period in question, the appellant possessed total assets worth
Rs.55,732.25. The assets possessed by the appellant were thus in
excess of the surplus income available to him, but since the excess
is comparatively small—it is less than ten percent of the total income
of Rs.1,27,715.43—The Supreme Court did not think it would be right
to hold that the assets found in the possession of the appellant were
disproportionate to his known sources of income so as to justify the
raising of the presumption under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 5 of the P.C.
Act, 1947 (corresponding to sec. 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act, 1988).
Supreme Court was of the view that, on the facts of the case,
the High Court as well as the Special Judge were in error in raising
the presumption contained in sub-sec. (3) of sec. 5 and convicting
the appellant on the basis of such presumption. Supreme Court
allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction.