Disproportionate assets prosecution requires proof of unexplained resources first; benami ownership must be proved by definite evidence.

In a disproportionate assets prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must first prove that a public servant possessed pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to known sources of income; only then does the burden shift to the accused to account for them. The Court noted that the accused produced documentary support for loans, a gift and sale proceeds, and the prosecution failed to rebut those materials with reliable evidence. The allegation that jewellery and certain bank balances were benami assets also failed, because benami ownership must be proved by definite and convincing evidence, not conjecture. After the proved deductions, the remaining disproportion was insufficient to sustain the conviction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's conviction for possessing assets disproportionate to known sources of income under the Prevention of Corruption Act could be sustained in light of the evidence relating to loans, gifts, sale proceeds, stridhana jewellery, and bank deposits.

Analysis: The statutory offence is not made out by mere acquisition or possession of property; the prosecution must first prove that the accused is a public servant, the pecuniary resources or property found in his possession, his known sources of income, and that the resources are disproportionate to those known sources. Only then does the burden shift to the accused to satisfactorily account for the assets. On the evidence, the appellant established with documentary support that the amounts claimed as unexplained included legitimate loans, a gift, and sale proceeds, and the prosecution failed to dislodge those documents by reliable evidence. The claim that the jewellery and certain bank balances were benami assets also failed because the prosecution did not discharge the burden of proving benami ownership with definite and convincing evidence. After giving effect to the proved deductions, the remaining disproportionality could not sustain the conviction recorded by the courts below.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the deductions established on the record.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for possession of disproportionate assets, the prosecution must prove disproportionate resources against known income before the burden shifts to the accused, and a charge of benami ownership cannot rest on conjecture or surmise but must be proved by definite legal evidence.

---