Disproportionate assets proof: sham loan documents can be disproved by oral evidence, while travelling allowance is excluded absent savings proof.

In a prosecution for disproportionate assets, oral evidence was admissible to show that facially genuine loan papers were sham transactions created after the search to explain cash found with the accused, and Section 92 of the Evidence Act did not bar such proof by a stranger to the documents. The alleged loan was therefore held not genuine, and the cash remained unexplained. Travelling allowance received during the check period was not treated as income for computing known sources unless actual savings from it were proved; no such proof was produced, so it was excluded. The conviction for possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged loan of Rs. 2,50,000 claimed to explain the cash found in the appellant's possession was genuine; (ii) Whether travelling allowance received during the check period was to be treated as income for determining disproportionate assets.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged loan of Rs. 2,50,000 claimed to explain the cash found in the appellant's possession was genuine.

Analysis: The alleged loan documents and account entries were held to have been created after the search to provide a false explanation for the cash recovered from the appellant's house. Oral evidence was admissible to show that the documents were never intended to operate as real loan transactions, and Section 92 of the Evidence Act did not bar such proof in a criminal prosecution by a stranger to the documents. The statements of the alleged lenders were accepted as establishing that no loan had in fact been advanced.

Conclusion: The alleged loan was not genuine and the appellant failed to satisfactorily explain the cash and assets to that extent.

Issue (ii): Whether travelling allowance received during the check period was to be treated as income for determining disproportionate assets.

Analysis: Travelling allowance is ordinarily paid to meet official expenses and is not a source of income for the purpose of computing known sources of income, unless actual savings from it are proved. No specific evidence was adduced to show any saving from the travelling allowance received by the appellant.

Conclusion: Travelling allowance was rightly excluded from income.

Final Conclusion: The conviction for possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income was sustained and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for disproportionate assets, oral evidence is admissible to prove that facially genuine loan documents were sham transactions created to explain unexplained wealth, and travelling allowance is not automatically treated as income unless actual savings are proved.

---