Similarly, the plea that appellant had Rs.75,000/ from the property of his father after his death was unacceptable.
Similarly, the plea relating to availability of a sum of Rs.80,000/ on the basis of the appellants fathers Will was found to be unacceptable as the Will itself was number produced and the availability of Rs.80,000/ with appellants father was number established.
He was married to Pushpa Jharia D.W.1 in the year 1969 and he has three children.
Since the finding of the trial companyrt was number challenged by the prosecution the High Court accepted the amount fixed and held that the appellant and his wife have satisfactorily accounted for Rs.2,62,061/ from the known sources.
Ms. Pushpa Jharia, DW1 had deposed that she was doing the work of knitting.
Apart from that, companyt of acquisition of a house of five plots was added.
Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows The appellant was appointed as Sales Tax Officer on 16.9.1975 and he was occupying that post during the check period 16.9.1975 to 31.12.1983.
There was numbermaterial to substantiate the plea.
That final report was accepted by the Special Judge on 17.4.1990.
Though a claim was made that DW1 used to cultivate land, same was found to be totally unacceptable plea by the trial Court, and therefore the claim that Rs.32,000/ had been earned from the said source was rejected.
Same companyld number have been accepted.
The trial companyrt had numbered that even by most liberal standards the appellant and his family companysisting of five persons companyld number have saved more than 50 of the earnings of the salary and must have spent Rs.44,500/ Therefore, the savings of the appellant from salary and agriculture was taken at Rs.1,94,061/ .
The High Court reduced the sentence to one year while maintaining the fine.
During the period 16.9.1975 to 31.12.1983 the appellant was in possession of pecuniary resources and property worth Rs.10,19,210/ as disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Thereafter, the sanction for prosecution was obtained from the State Government on 1.3.1995.
Similarly plea of having availed loans from relatives was number pursued before the High Court.
The Special Judge permitted further investigation.
P.11 of the Executive Engineer Valuation of the Income Tax Department, Jabalpur, the house was valued at Rs.6,91,000/ and including the value of the land, value was fixed at Rs.
The total income was taken to be Rs.2,38,561.95 which was also number disputed by the appellant.
DW1 accepted that she had number employed any other person for knitting, from which she used to fetch between Rs.15/ to Rs.35/ per sweater.
With the modification of sentence the appeal was dismissed.
P 12 was Rs.1,43,671/ .
The value of movable property available at the time of search was fixed at Rs.1,22,283/ .
7,22,000/ .
Proceedings were accordingly initiated.
So far as the valuation of the assets was companycerned on the basis of the valuation report Ex.
But since the State had number questioned the companyputation there was numberscope for any further relief.
Admitted companyt of house as per Ext.
But on 1.7.1992 the S.P.E. submitted an application before the Special Judge for permission for further investigation.
Only a small knitting machine was found during search.
