Summary
A disproportionate-assets conviction was set aside because the prosecution omitted substantial income and the courts supplied speculative calculations that materially changed the accusation without a fresh charge. The prosecution first had to establish disproportionate assets beyond reasonable doubt before requiring a satisfactory explanation from the public servant.
Issues
- Whether speculative judicial reconstruction of omitted income and expenditure could sustain the disproportionate-assets conviction.
- When the accused’s obligation to explain disproportionate assets arises.
Provisions considered
- Section 13(1)(e), with Section 13(2), as applicable to the prosecution, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988The prosecution must first establish possession of assets disproportionate to known lawful income before the accused must satisfactorily account for them. (¶ 19–22)
Held
- The investigators admitted omitting salary for various periods and agricultural income. The courts’ own presumptive estimates of income, expenses and agricultural shares could not cure that failure of proof. (¶¶ 7–14, 18)
- The conviction ultimately rested on materially altered figures and imputations without a fresh charge confronting the accused. Such shifting accusations and conjectural evidence violated fundamental requirements of criminal prosecution. (¶ 17–18)
- The primary burden was on the prosecution to prove disproportionate possession beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to establish those foundational facts meant the accused was not required to explain the alleged excess; he was entitled to the benefit of doubt. (¶ 20–22)
Result
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside, giving the appellant the benefit of doubt.