Statutory presumption in disproportionate assets cases fails where recalculated income and assets do not show sufficient excess

The statutory presumption under section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 arises only when the prosecution proves possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to known sources of income and the accused cannot satisfactorily account for them. On the facts discussed, several claimed receipts were accepted, several prosecution expenditure items were reduced or disallowed, and some alleged assets were found to belong to others. After recalculating income, expenditure, and assets, the excess was considered too small to justify an inference of disproportion sufficient to attract the presumption, and the conviction resting on that presumption could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution had established such disproportion between the appellant's known sources of income and his assets as to justify the statutory presumption under section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sustain the conviction for criminal misconduct.

Analysis: The statutory presumption under section 5(3) arises only when the prosecution proves that the accused is in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income and is unable to satisfactorily account for them. On the facts, several receipts claimed by the appellant were accepted, several expenditure items relied upon by the prosecution were disallowed or reduced, and a number of assets alleged to belong to the appellant were held to belong to others. After recalculating income, expenditure, and assets, the excess of assets over surplus income was found to be small and not such as to warrant an inference of disproportion sufficient to attract the presumption.

Conclusion: The presumption under section 5(3) was not justified on the evidence, and the conviction based on that presumption could not stand.

---