Statutory presumption in corruption cases sustains conviction where disproportionate assets are not satisfactorily explained.

Statutory presumption of criminal misconduct arose once the prosecution proved pecuniary resources disproportionate to the accused's known sources of income, and the accused had to satisfactorily rebut that presumption with proof, not merely a plausible explanation. The presumption was not rebutted, so it stood against the appellant. Failure to prove specific acts of bribery under the separate bribery provision did not prevent conviction for criminal misconduct, because that offence is distinct and does not require proof of the earlier bribery ingredients once the statutory conditions are met. The conviction was therefore sustained and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statutory presumption under Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 arose on the facts proved and stood unrebutted; (ii) whether failure to prove specific acts of bribery under Section 5(1)(a) prevented conviction for criminal misconduct under Section 5(1)(d).

Issue (i): Whether the statutory presumption under Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 arose on the facts proved and stood unrebutted.

Analysis: The section does not create a new offence but lays down a rule of evidence. Once the prosecution proves possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to the known sources of income, the court is bound to draw the presumption of criminal misconduct unless the accused satisfactorily accounts for the resources. The accused must do more than offer a plausible explanation; the explanation must be proved to the court's satisfaction. The prosecution may rely on the known source of income established by the evidence, and the burden of rebuttal remains on the accused.

Conclusion: The presumption under Section 5(3) arose and was not rebutted; this was against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether failure to prove specific acts of bribery under Section 5(1)(a) prevented conviction for criminal misconduct under Section 5(1)(d).

Analysis: The offence under Section 5(1)(d) is distinct from the charge of accepting specific bribes under Section 5(1)(a). Proof of the earlier factual ingredients necessary for a bribe charge is not required for conviction under Section 5(1)(d) once the statutory conditions of Section 5(3) are satisfied. The collapse of the specific bribery charge therefore did not displace the legal presumption supporting the misconduct charge.

Conclusion: The failure of the specific bribery charge did not defeat the conviction for criminal misconduct; this was against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was sustained on the basis of the statutory presumption and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the prosecution proves pecuniary resources disproportionate to the accused's known sources of income under Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the accused must satisfactorily rebut the presumption of criminal misconduct, and acquittal on a separate specific-bribery charge does not bar conviction under the misconduct provision.

---