Benami proof in disproportionate-assets cases requires clear evidence, and unsupported valuation assumptions can defeat conviction.

A conviction for possessing assets disproportionate to known sources of income under the Prevention of Corruption Act depends on the prosecution proving benami ownership and the asset computation with clear legal evidence. The text states that properties standing in the names of the appellant's father and wife could not be treated as benami without supporting proof, especially where the father had independent means. It also notes that inconsistent valuation of one property and failure to properly adjust claimed expenditure and income from a well, leasehold land, and pulses distorted the calculation. On that basis, the disproportionate-assets finding was not satisfactorily proved and the conviction and sentence were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income under the Prevention of Corruption Act was sustainable on the evidence, particularly on the questions of benami ownership, valuation of assets, and accounting of income.

Analysis: The foundation of the prosecution case rested on treating certain properties standing in the names of the appellant's father and wife as benami and on excluding items claimed by the appellant towards expenditure and income. The burden to establish a benami transaction lay on the prosecution and had to be discharged by clear legal evidence. The evidence showed that one property purchased in the father's name could not be treated as benami, since the father had independent means from service benefits and the surrounding circumstances did not support the inference that the appellant was the real owner. The High Court's own reasoning on another property was internally inconsistent in excluding most of the consideration yet adding a residual amount without a coherent basis. The appellate court also accepted the appellant's claim regarding expenditure on the well, income from leasehold land, and income from pulses, which required corresponding adjustments in the computation of assets and income.

Conclusion: The finding that the appellant held assets disproportionate to his known sources of income was not satisfactorily proved; the conviction and sentence were set aside and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: A benami transaction must be proved by clear legal evidence, and where the prosecution's computation of disproportionate assets is undermined by unsupported assumptions or internally inconsistent findings, the conviction cannot stand.

---