VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

754 DECISION - 376
(A) P.C. Act, 1988 — Sec. 13(1)(e)
(B) Disproportionate assets — appreciation of
evidence
(i) Appreciation of evidence in a case of disproportionate
assets.
(ii) Observations on enforcement of Conduct Rules
and simplification of investigation.
Republic of India vs. Raman Singh,
1994 Cri.L.J. ORI 1513
The accused, an Income Tax Officer, was a member of a
joint family. His grand father was an agriculturist having only 32.51
acres of land in the year 1918. The grand father had four sons, of
whom accused’s father alone married and the three others remained
unmarried. Accused’s father died in the year 1935. Between 1918
and 1936, family added only 8 acres 51 decimals of land to the joint
family assets. No property was acquired during the period 1936 and
1944, when accused became a graduate. He joined service as Lower
Division Clerk in Income Tax Department on 3-8-1945 and from that
year properties were acquired, development to ancestral building was
made, deposits were made in Post Offices and Banks inspite of
increase in family by birth of sons and daughter to accused who
were educated and got married. Prosecution found that between 3-
8-1945 and 26-6-1974 income of the family from all sources which
included salary of the accused and his son, interest on deposits in
Banks and Post Offices, dowry received by sons during their
marriages, agricultural income and refund of income tax came to
Rs. 2,33,440. Expenditure of the family during the entire period was
Rs.3,17,782. Value of the assets and investments was Rs. 4,04,856.
Taking the assets and expenditure together it was found that total
asset of accused disproportionate to the income was Rs. 4,89,198
as on 26-6-1974. The Special Judge found the disproportionate
assets at Rs. 1,57,029 and convicted the accused under sec. 5(1)(e)
read with sec. 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947