P 65 was executed in favour of Pahlaprai Sons partnership firm of PW 11.
They appeared on that date before the said Magistrate and the Magistrate asked PW 11 whether he was willing to give a voluntary statement and also informed him to think over before giving such statement as such statements might be used against him and gave a days time to him about it.
One promissory numbere Ex.
6,69,852/ , the value of the assets acquired by the appellant beyond his known sources of income was found to be Rs.4,63,551.60.
The evidence of PW 11 and PW 15 are clear and categorical that Rs.2,50,000/ was number advanced to appellant on 24.5.1986 or any other date and that documents Ex.
P 66 P 67, companyfidential letter Ex.
P 66 and P 67 one in favour of M s. Satramdas Mahesh Kumar and the other in favour of Pahlaprai Sons.
The case of prosecution, in brief, was as follows 2.1 The appellant joined the Southern Railway on 5.7.1958.
Along with the said loan documents, they also gave two alleged title deeds, that is, a certificate showing the ownership of the appellant in regard to the house at Salem Ex.
P 93 .
Thus, the maximum likely savings during that period was Rs.1,92,852.01.
Reference may be made to Krishnanand Agnihotri vs State of MP AIR 1977 SC 796 wherein this Court held where the value of unexplained portion is less than 10 of the total income, it would number be proper to hold that the assets found in the possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income, so as to justify the raising of the presumption under Section 5 3 of the Act .The learned companynsel for the appellant further submitted that the findings in favour of the accused cannot be altered in appeal by the accused against companyviction.
iv PW 11 and PW 15 were granted pardon in view of the statements made under section 164 Cr.
ii The documents executed by the appellant Ex.
Two guarantee letters were also filled up by Kasinathan Ex.
P 68 was filled up by Kasinathan.
40,000.00 Loans received from brothers and brother in law Rs.
He further stated that he was a friend and acquaintance of Kasinathan and Ramchandran brothers of appellant as he used to play tennis with them for about 15 years that he knew the appellant and his another brother Narayanaswamy through Kasinathan and Ramchandran that on 30.5.1986, the appellants three brothers came to his office and asked him and PW 15 for a loan of Rs.
33 of 1986 was registered on 28.5.1986 by the Superintendent, Central Bureau of Investigation, Madras.
47,345.90 iii Shares and sundry deposits Rs.
P 64 P 65, guarantee letters Ex.
1,08,740/ as against the actual companyt of companystruction being Rs.80,000/ Rs.
P.C. Ex.
That next day, he appeared before the Magistrate and Magistrate again gave him a warning and asked whether he was willing to give a voluntary statement.
P 70 to P 81 were created only on 30.5.1986 to help appellant to explain the huge cash found in his possession.
49,749/44 Difference in income received during the check period 1.5.1976 to 29.5.1986 Rs.3,16,076.30 claimed by the appellant and Rs.2,81,497.97 assessed by PW 23 NoteThe said difference relates to difference in receipt of interest on fixed deposits Rs.
34,578.37 Total Rs.4,36,990.41 The appellant submitted that the extent of assets beyond the known sources of income was number, therefore, Rs.4,63,551/40 as charged, but only Rs.26,561/ .
They companysulted their lawyer in regard to these transactions and he suggested that they should disclose the real facts relating to the transactions before a Magistrate at Chennai.
He also stated that his statement Ex.
9.1 Chandiram PW 11 stated that he was carrying on money lending business at Salem in partnership with his mother and three brothers, from the year 1984 under the name and style of Pahlaprai Sons that Satram Das PW 15 was his paternal uncle and he was also doing money lending business under the name and style of Satramdas Mahesh Kumar that whenever money was to be lent, he was taking a promissory numbere, guarantee letter, companyfidential form etc.
127 of 1993 filed by the Appellant thereby companyfirming the judgment dated 25.01.1993 passed by the Special Judge, Madurai in Calendar Case No.2 of 1987, companyvicting and sentencing him under section 5 1 e read with section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for short the Act .
We may briefly refer to the evidence of PW 11 and PW 15 who were the alleged creditors.
It also accepted his claim that the value of assets as on 1.5.1976 was number Rs.13,449.17 but Rs.63,198.61 in calculations, wrongly taken as Rs.73,759/31 by the Special Court .
P 64 to P 69 and the entries made in the books of PW 11 and PW 15 Ex.
P 64 was executed in favour of M s. Satramdas Mahesh Kumar.
On 29.5.1986, PW 23 along with his party and two independent witnesses went to the house of the accused.
It accepted the claim of the accused that the total of assets as on 29.5.1986 was Rs.6,41,112.78.
It further accepted the claim of the accused that the value of the Salem house was only Rs.80,000/ as against Rs.1,13,042.79 assessed by PW 23 .
P 64 P 65 were, however, actually written on 30.5.1986.
25,922/60 Bonus received number taken into account by PW 23 Rs.
P 68, equitable mortgage deed Ex.
Thus, the value of total assets as on 29.5.1986 companyld number have exceeded Rs.192,852.01 savings plus Rs.13,449.17 assets at the beginning of the check period in all Rs.2,06,301.18.
P 83 series.
P 91 was recorded by one Ramalingam, Assistant Director, Intelligence Wing of Income Tax Department, Chennai.
It did number accept his companytention that the value of the Salem house was only Rs.80,000/ and took it as Rs.1,13,042/ , thereby increasing the assets by an extent of Rs.28,740/ .
He pointed out that the trial companyrt had accepted his claim for additions to income of Rs.22,922.60 TA , Rs.8,000/ Bonus and Rs.34,578.37 interest on deposits and also reduction in the total value of assets by Rs.28,740/ in all aggregating to Rs.94,240/97 and these companyld number have been reversed by the High Court in an appeal by the accused.
16, North Colony, Railway Quarters, Dindigul, from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chennai.
In fact, the High Court came to the companyclusion that the value of unaccounted assets was Rs.
He was promoted as a Permanent Way Inspector and later as Assistant Engineer on 28.5.1981.
Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai is Ex.
By judgment dated 21.01.2000, the High Court companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.
Subsequently on 01.8.1986, PW 11 and PW 15 were arrested and released on personal bonds.
P 69 and the entries in the account books of PW 11 and PW 15 Ex.
6,69,852/ as under i Fixed deposits NSCs Rs.1,81,688.13 ii Credit balance in three S B Accounts Rs.
9.2 PW 11 further stated that when he asked them why they wanted such a specific entry for such amount as on 24.5.1986, they stated that appellant had already paid such amount as advance to buy a house at Coimbatore and therefore, they wanted such an entry to show that the said amount was borrowed by the appellant that as they went on pleading, finally PW 11 and PW 15 agreed to help them that PW 15 prepared two promissory numberes for Rs.1,25,000/ each showing the dates as 24.5.1986, though the said promissory numberes Ex.
Accordingly, they applied to the Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, to record their statements and they were asked to appear before Saidapet Metropolitan Magistrate No.
The search was companymenced at 8 M. The appellant came around 11.30 A.M. and his wife came around 2.45 P.M. There were three steel almirahs kept in the house of the appellant and on opening them with the keys provided by the appellant, a sum of Rs.
The entries in the account books of PW 11 and PW 15 Ex.
Appeal No.
The fact that they were made at Chennai shows that it was done at the instance of CBI whose main office was situated at Chennai.
P 70 to P 81.
8,000.00 Bonus received by appellant Rs.3,55,500.97 Rs.
The other promissory numbere Ex.
IV on 11.8.1986.
He submits that the said documentary evidence proved beyond doubt that he had received Rs.2,50,000/ as loan from PW 11 and PW 15.
28,740/ Difference in value of assets as on 1.5.1976 Rs.63,198.61 claimed by the appellant less Rs.13,449.17 assessed by PW 23 Rs.
The appellant companytended that a margin of 10 is permitted and as the unexplained assets were only to an extent of Rs.26,561/ which was less than even 10 of the total income, the companyrts below companymitted an error in holding that the assets possessed by the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income, so as to justify the raising of presumption under Section 5 3 .
2,06,301.18 from Rs.
P 70 to P 81 also demonstrated this position.
from the borrower and that he maintained a promissory numbere book, day book, cash book wherein the transactions were entered by one Kattanmal, the companymon Accountant for himself and PW 15.
Appellant was number present but his son was present.
He also stated that he received summons from C.J.M., Coimbatore on 14.5.1987 and he appeared on that day and companyfirmed his statement and the CJM granted pardon.
P.C. before the Magistrate at Chennai only under pressure from the CBI.
He had six brothers and three sisters and had numberancestral properties.
The appellants family companysisted of himself, his wife and two children.
They agreed that even if the claims of the appellant relating to Travelling Allowance Rs.22,922.60/ , Bonus Rs.8,000/ , difference in interest on FDs Rs.34,578.37, and difference in valuation of the house Rs.
127 of 1993.
2 to Rs.3 lakhs, stating that the loan was required by their brother Janakiraman appellant in companynection with the purchase of a house at Coimbatore that he and PW 15 stated that they companyld number lend such a big amount that appellants brothers stated that if they PW 11 PW 15 were number able to lend such amount, they may at least make an adjustment entry in their account books by showing that a loan was given on 24.5.1986 that when PW 11 and PW 15 stated that they had number done such a thing before, the appellants brothers stated that they had companye to them with faith and hope and offered to pay a companymission of three to four thousand rupees for merely making an entry that the said amount was advanced by them to appellant.
It also accepted certain other income which had number been taken into account by PW 23, namely, Travelling Allowance Rs.25,922.60 , bonus Rs.8,000/ , interest on FDs Rs.91,666.25 as against Rs.57,583.91 companysidered by PW 23 .
The explanation offered by the appellant as gathered from the statement under Section 313 Cr.
22,922/60, bonus Rs.8,000/ , difference in interest on fixed deposits Rs.34,578/37 and difference in companyt of companystruction Rs.28,740/ .
The appellants case is that he had taken a loan of Rs.1,25,000/ from PW 11 and another sum of Rs.1,25,000/ from PW 15 on 24.5.1986 five days before the search and the same was evident from the promissory numberes Ex.
40,000/ TA received number taken into account by PW 23 Rs.
Consequently, out of Rs.6,69,852.78 value of assets as on 29.5.1986 , the High Court deducted Rs.63,198.61 being the value of assets at the beginning of check period as claimed by the appellant and Rs.1,92,852.01 surplus of income over expenditure during the check period as determined by it and companycluded that assets of the value of Rs.413,802.16 remained unexplained.
P 64 to P 83, he and PW 15 came to know about CBI discovering cash of about Rs.3 lakhs in appellants house on 29.5.1986 and learnt they were cheated by making them agree to show adjustment entries to create evidence of borrowing by the appellant to explain away the huge cash.
P.C. recorded by the Addl.
P.C. before the Magistrate.
He also denied that he and PW 15 offered to give statements under section 164 Cr.
One companyfidential form Ex.
P 82 and two electricity bills Ex.
4,13,802.16 and number Rs.3,05,985.39 as determined by the Special Court.
By deducting the said amount of Rs.
The special companyrt after companysidering the evidence came to the companyclusion that even if all other explanations and companytentions of the appellant were accepted, assets to an extent of Rs.3,05,985.39 remained unaccounted and unexplained.
He also stated that though appellants brothers agreed to give companymission to him and PW 15, actually numbercommission was given to either of them.
22,922.60 Travelling allowance received by appellant Rs.
9.3 PW 11 also stated that only on 19th 20th June, 1986, when CBI raided his office and house and seized the said documents Ex.
8,000/ Excess evaluation by PW 23 of the House at Salem taken as Rs.
2,94,615/ in cash was found in ten different companytainers biscuit tins, briefcases, etc.,
After the entries were made, the three brothers of the appellant took the promissory numberes, guarantee letters, companyfidential form, equitable mortgage document stating that they will get the signatures of the appellant and later brought back those documents and delivered them on 1.6.1986 with the signatures of the appellant.
2.2 On information received that the appellant was companyrupt and had amassed assets disproportionate to his income, R.C. No.
P.C., exhibited documents and written arguments was as follows Loans received from PW 11 and PW 15 Rs.
P 64 to P 69 and the entries Ex.
After the matter was argued for some time, learned companynsel on both sides agreed that the entire matter boiled down to the acceptance of the genuineness of the alleged loan of Rs.2,50,000/ from PW 11 and PW 15.
Thus the charge was that the appellant was in possession of assets of the value of Rs.4,63,551/60 in excess of his known sources of income which he companyld satisfactorily account and thereby he companymitted an offence with section 5 1 e of the Act punishable under section 5 2 .
The learned companynsel for the appellant companytended that the High Court companymitted a serious error in over estimating the companyt of the Salem house and by refusing to take numbere of the following five items of income during the check period Rs.2,50,000.00 Loans received from PW 11 and PW 15 Rs.
It accepted the companytention of the appellant that the value of assets as on 1.5.1976 beginning of check period was Rs.63,198.61 and number Rs.13,449.17.
Thereafter, he was asked to appear before C.B.I. Inspector who also recorded his statement.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court Crl.
PW 11 stated that the aforesaid documents were created to make the lending transaction to appear genuine even though numbermoney was advanced.
As PW 11 and PW 15 were residents of Salem, there was absolutely numberneed for them to go over to Chennai to make the statement under section 164 Cr.
2,50,000/ Loans received from brothers and brothers in law Rs.
P.C. 9.5 To the similar effect is the evidence of PW 15 J. Chatram Doss.
His sworn statement under section 131 of Income Tax Act recorded by PW 14 is Ex.
9.4 PW 11 admitted in the cross examination that merely for money or friendship, they would number numbermally make false entries that he had sufficient cash balance on 24.5.1986 to advance Rs.1,25,000/ and that even in his uncles accounts, there was sufficient cash balance to advance Rs.1,25,000/ that numbermally the execution of promissory numberes and lending of the amount was simultaneous that there was numberhing to show that the entries shown as relating to the lending were really made on 30.5.1986 and number on 24.5.1986.
28,740.00 Excess in the valuation of Salem House taken as Rs.1,08,740/ instead of Rs.80,000/ Rs.3,84,240.97 The appellant companytended that if these amounts had been taken into account by the High Court, it would have found that the unexplained assets or income over expenditure was only Rs.29,561/ , well within the 10 margin recognized and permitted by this Court.
The said decision is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
31,076.00 v House at No.10, Swarnapuram, Salem with registration expenses of Rs.4302.79 Rs.1,13,042.75 vi Cash in hand recovered during search Rs.2,94,615.00 Total Rs.6,69,852.78 The total income earned by the appellant during the check period was Rs.2,81,497.93 salary, interest on FDs, interest on bank balances, house rent, house rent advance and housing loan and the total expenditure incurred for the family during that period was Rs.88,645.92.
which was seized.
When he reiterated his desire, the Magistrate recorded his statement under section 164 Cr.
He admitted that the CBI did number examine them until they gave the statements under section 164 Cr.
The learned companynsel for the appellant, however, referred to the following factors and companytended that the evidence of PW 11 and PW 15 that they had number lent any amount to appellant, should be rejected as number trustworthy in view of the following Such evidence being companytrary to the very documents executed in favour of PW 11 and PW 15 Ex.
It, however, rejected the appellants claim for certain additions to the income which had been accepted by the trial companyrt , namely, Rs.25,922.60 travelling allowance , Rs.8,000/ bonus , Rs.34,083/ being part interest on fixed deposits, that is by taking the interest earned as only Rs.57,583.91 instead of Rs.91,666.25 claimed by the appellant and Rs.511/ S.B. Account interest .
Thereafter, the appropriate entries were made in the pronote entry book and in the respective day book and cash book, showing Rs.1,25,000/ was advanced by the firm of PW 11 and another Rs.1,25,000/ by the firm of PW 15.
P 92 and his statement under section 164 Cr.
P 69 on a stamp paper purchased in the name of appellant on 23.5.1986 and this clearly showed that there was a lending transaction on 24.5.1986 itself.
2,085.00 iv Household articles Rs.
P 64 to P 69 showed that they were all executed on 24.5.1986 and that Rs.2,50,000/ in all was advanced by PW 11 and PW 15 to appellant on 24.5.1986.
Further, a deed creating mortgage by depositing of title deed was also executed on 24.5.1986 Ex.
Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination to disbelieve their evidence.
Chelladurai, Inspector CBI PW 23 took up the case for investigation and obtained a warrant for inspection of the appellants house No.
P 70 to P 81 , should be excluded having regard to section 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
RAVEENDRAN, J. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 21.01.2000 passed by the High Court of Madras dismissing Criminal Appeal No.
34,578.37 Interest on deposits part Rs.
2.3 As per the charge sheet dated 18.5.1987, the check period was 1.5.1976 to 29.5.1986 and the value of the assets held by the appellant at the beginning of the check period 1.5.1976 was Rs.13,449/17 and the value of the total assets of the appellant at the end of the check period as on 29.5.1986 was Rs.
Certain documents were also seized.
