Disproportionate assets proof rules clarified: prosecution need not negate every income source, and acquittal stood on doubt.

In disproportionate assets prosecutions, once the prosecution proves possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to known sources of income to the required criminal standard, it need not disprove every possible source of income. The choice of the check period is not controlled by any fixed rule and may validly be confined to a ten-year span if that provides a true and comprehensive picture of the accused's resources and assets. Beneficial ownership of a joint deposit cannot be presumed merely from the first-named depositor; it depends on the deposit terms and surrounding material. On the facts reappraised by the HC, the excess, if any, was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, so the acquittal was not interfered with and benefit of doubt was maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent's acquittal for criminal misconduct based on possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income should be interfered with.

Analysis: The prosecution was not required to disprove every possible source of income once it established, by criminal standard of proof, possession of pecuniary resources and property disproportionate to known sources of income. The choice of the check period was not governed by any fixed rule and could properly be limited to a ten-year span if that gave a true and comprehensive picture of the respondent's resources and assets. The assumption that the first-named joint depositor alone was the beneficial owner was also unsustainable as beneficial ownership depended on the terms of the deposit and the surrounding material. Even so, the High Court's reassessment of the accounts and the disputed credits led it to hold that the excess, if any, was not proved beyond reasonable doubt to justify conviction.

Conclusion: The acquittal was not disturbed and the respondent was given the benefit of doubt.

---