Statutory presumption for disproportionate assets upheld where property held by relatives and pre-Act acquisitions were counted

Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was treated as a rule of evidence for proving criminal misconduct under section 5(2). The Court held that assets acquired before the Act could be considered for the limited purpose of assessing disproportionate property, without making the provision retrospective. Property standing in the names of the accused's wife and son was also treated as relevant where it was held on his behalf. Once disproportionate assets were proved, the statutory presumption arose and the burden shifted to the accused to give a satisfactory explanation. On the facts, the explanation failed, the presumption was not rebutted, and the conviction and minimum sentence were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the presumption under section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 arose on the proved facts, including whether assets acquired before the Act and assets standing in the names of the appellant's wife and son could be taken into account; and (ii) whether the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and fine required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the presumption under section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 arose on the proved facts, including whether assets acquired before the Act and assets standing in the names of the appellant's wife and son could be taken into account.

Analysis: Section 5(3) was treated as a rule of evidence for proving the offence of criminal misconduct already charged under section 5(2), not as creating a new offence. Its language required the Court to consider whether the accused, or any person on his behalf, was in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to known sources of income and whether the accused satisfactorily accounted for such possession. The Court held that taking into account assets acquired before the commencement of the Act did not make the provision retrospective, because the trial related to conduct after the Act came into force and the section only drew on antecedent facts for evidentiary purposes. On the evidence, the resources standing in the names of the appellant's son and wife were found to be held on behalf of the appellant, and the proved assets were held to be clearly disproportionate to the net income known to the prosecution. The explanation offered by the appellant was disbelieved. The argument that the presumption could not operate where the prosecution also led other evidence was rejected.

Conclusion: The presumption under section 5(3) rightly arose, the appellant failed to rebut it, and the conviction was sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and fine required reduction.

Analysis: The statute prescribed a minimum sentence of one year's imprisonment, subject only to recorded special reasons for a lesser term. No special reason was found to justify interference with the sentence.

Conclusion: The sentence was not reduced.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were upheld on the basis of the statutory presumption arising from proved disproportionate assets, and no ground was found for interference with punishment.

Ratio Decidendi: Under section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the prosecution may rely on proved possession of disproportionate assets, including assets acquired before the Act and assets held by relatives on behalf of the accused, and once such facts are established the Court must draw the presumption of guilt unless the accused satisfactorily rebuts it.

---