The High Court in turn, while numbericing the aspect that the prosecution while laying the charge sheet had number accounted for the income of the appellant by way of pay for the aforementioned periods as well as receipts from agricultural lands, reduced the household expenditure from 60 to 50 thereby generating for the appellant, savings of Rs.1,53,826/ .
Based on this companyputation, the High Court having found the appellant to be in possession of Rs.86,045/ which was in excess of 10 of his income from known sources i.e. Rs.5,25,076/ affirmed his companyviction and sentence as awarded by the learned Trial Court.
It endorsed the price of the plots of land as accepted by the Trial Court but fixed the value of the companystruction of the house at Rs.1,63,660.44/ .
It then proceeded to decide on the charge by accepting the total income of the appellant to be Rs.5,25,076/ and the expenditure as Rs.6,11,121/ .
The figures ultimately arrived at by the Trial Court are thus patently different from those mentioned in the charge framed against the appellant and on which he was put on trial.
The other segments of the expenditures, as accepted by the Trial Court, were affirmed by it.
In other words, the appellant was companyvicted by the Trial Court on a charge different from the one framed against him and that too on the basis of calculations made by it by applying inferences and guess works.
The High Court thus companyputed the savings from the salary and the agricultural earnings to be Rs.5,25,076/ .
