Sunil Thomas, J.

1. A former Superintendent of Customs, Kochi faced trial in CC No. 8/1993 before the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam for offences punishable under sections 13(1) (e) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988.

2. The appellant herein, who was the Former Superintendent of Customs House Cochin and Air Customs, Trivandrum, was a public servant under the PC Act. Allegation of the prosecution was that, during the check period between 1/6/1983 to 25/6/1990, the appellant acquired and was in possession of properties in his name and in the name of his family members, to the extent of Rs. 18,12,319.39/- which was disproportionate to the known source of his income and that of his family members. Appellant could not satisfactorily account for it and thereby he committed offence punishable under section 13 (1)(e) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. It was alleged His wife was a teacher in a school and had six children. The prosecution alleged that, he had in his possession either in his name or in the name of the members of his family as on 1/6/1983, movables and immovables assets worth Rs. 77,283.95 as detailed in Statement-A attached to charge sheet. He was in possession as on June 25, 1990 movable and immovable assets to the value of Rs. 17,88,465.02 as described in statement-B. Considering his income of Rs. 6,25,153/- during the check period from his all known sources as furnished in Statement-C and expenditure of Rs. 7,26,291.32 incurred by him during the check period as described in Statement-D, he could not have any savings. Thus, on June 25, 1990 he was having assets/pecuniary resources to the tune of Rs. 18,12,319.90 which was disproportionate to his known sources of income which he could not satisfactorily account.

3. Accused pleaded not guilty before trial court and hence prosecution adduced its evidence. On the side of the prosecution, PW 1 to PW 77 were examined and Exts. P1 to P345 were marked. Mos 1 to 3 were identified. Ext. C1 was marked as court exhibits. On the side of the accused, DW 1 was examined and Exts. D1 And D2 were marked.

4. On an evaluation of the entire evidence, the court below found the accused guilty of offences punishable under section 13 (1) (e) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1998 and sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh. A default sentence of six months was also incorporated.

5. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, accused had preferred this appeal. Pending the proceedings, appellant died on 17/7/2014. Crl.M.A. No. 2/2018 was filed by his wife to prosecute the appeal, since there was a direction to pay a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh. It was allowed and she pursued the appeal for some time. Thereafter, she also died. Crl.M.A.1/2019 was filed by the daughter to prosecute the appeal. This court allowed it on 26/9/2019.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Special prosecutor for CBI.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant did not vehemently challenge the various findings entered into by the court below except advancing the argument that the wife of the accused was employed and her income was not taken into consideration by the court below, while evaluating the entire evidence.

8. Trial court, on the basis of the available materials had found that the accused was a public servant. The crux of the prosecution allegation was that accused possessed movables and immovables worth Rs. 77,283.95 as on 1/6/1983, evidenced by list-A of the chargesheet. It was marked as Ext. P345. As on 25/6/1990, he was found in possession of movable and immovable properties worth Rs. 17,88,465.02 as disclosed in list-B of Ext. 345. CBI calculated his income from known source as 6,25,153/- during the check period. The expenditure evaluated during the above period was 7,26,291.32.

9. The court below found that two items of immovable properties were liable to be excluded, being the acquisition prior to the check period. A deposit in the South Indian Bank was also excluded. The court below on an evaluation of the available materials found that the residential building was constructed by the accused. It was held to be a substantial building. Though accused claimed that the building was constructed with the funds of the wife, the court below rejected that contention holding that she was only a teacher and did not have that much of income to construct such a big building. The land having an extent of 8.7 cents was purchased in the name of the accused, evidenced by Ext. P215. It was held to be the asset of the accused. Most of the other movables and other valuable items arrayed in the list were found to be that of the accused. It seems that all the above conclusions arrived at by the court below were supported by documentary evidence and oral evidence. These findings were not seriously attacked by the learned counsel for the accused. The court below also found that there was no proof that the wife was capable of acquiring these properties.

10. On the basis of available materials, the court below concluded that during the check period, accused had wealth of Rs. 15,62,450/-. His gross income was Rs. 5,46,117/-. The expenditure calculated by the court below was Rs. 3,63,146/-. His saving was only Rs. 1,82,971/. This was against the asset worth Rs. 15,62,450/-. On the above premise, the court below held that the accused was in possession of disproportionate assets.

11. As indicated above, all the above conclusions are supported by documentary and oral evidence and supported by cogent reasons. Definitely, evidence was available that the wife was employed as teacher. The court below while evaluating the above facts had also taken into consideration the income from that source also and it was properly accounted. Having considered the above, I find no merit in the contention set up by the learned counsel for the accused. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction arrived at by the court below.

12. Considering the fact that the accused has expired, jail sentence cannot definitely survive. Considering the nature of the allegation, I also find no reason to interfere with the fine portion of the lower court judgment, which seems to be commensurate with the nature of guilt proved.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied on Crl.M.A. No. 1/2020, which was an application filed invoking section 482 of Cr.P.C., to return the original documents produced by the prosecution after keeping the certified copies on the file. It was asserted in that application that, documents were highly necessary for getting the benefit from the insurance company and to withdraw the deposits from the bank, LIC and from other institutions. It was claimed that after the death of the accused. Petitioner, who was the daughter of the accused who was authorised by the other legal heirs to claim the amount, find it difficult for her survival.

14. The petitioner has sought for return of few documents as well as few documents evidencing the deposits in various bank, General Provident Fund, LIC, etc. It is true that the court below has arrived at definite conclusion that the accused was holding property disproportionate to his assets. Though the prosecution allegation was that he was in possession of properties worth Rs. 18,12,319/-, the court below on an evaluation of the materials on record, found that appellants assets were worth Rs. 15,62,450/-. He had savings of Rs. 1,82,971/-. Though it was held that he was in possession of assets disproportionate to his known source of income and his family, there is no clear finding that the documents mentioned in Crl.M.A.1/2020 were procured through illegal source. There is no finding that any of the properties specifically referred to above documents are tainted assets. Further, the court has not ordered the confiscation of the assets covered by the documents referred in para 4 of the above application.

15. Having considered this, I am inclined to order return of the above documents after substituting it with certified copies. This will be subject to the claim, if any of the legal heirs. It is made clear that documents shall be returned by the trial court only after remitting the fine imposed by the trial court which is confirmed in this appeal.

16. Crl.M.A. No. 1/2020 will stand allowed. Exts. P3, Ext. P4, Ext. P5(a), Ext. P13, Ext. P16(a), Ext. P54, Ext. P55, Ext. P94, Ext. 111, Exts. P138 & 139, Ext. P142, Ext. P152, Ext. P144, Ext. P199, Ext. P200, Ext. P201, Ext. P202, Ext. P203, Ext. P.204, Ext. P.223, Ext. P250, Ext. P278, Ext. P279 and Ext. P280, Ext. P296, Ext. P322, Ext. P323, Ext. P324 and Ext. P325 will be released to the petitioner in Crl.M.A. No. 1/2020 on substitution of it with certified copies.

Crl.Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence.