Pre-Act assets can be counted in disproportionate assets cases because the provision is a rule of evidence, not retrospective liability.

For an offence under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, pecuniary resources and property acquired before commencement of the Act may be considered when determining whether assets are disproportionate to known sources of income. The provision is not retrospective in creating liability, but it does operate as a rule of evidence for trials conducted after the Act came into force. The earlier authority in Sajjan Singh was followed, and the contrary view that pre-Act assets must be excluded was held inconsistent with the settled interpretation.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for an offence under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, pecuniary resources and property acquired before the provision came into force could be taken into account while determining whether the accused was in possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income.

Analysis: Section 5(1)(e) penalises possession during the period of office of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to known sources of income. The provision is not retrospective in operation, but the rule of evidence applied in determining disproportion is not confined to assets acquired after commencement of the Act. The earlier decision in Sajjan Singh held that taking pre-Act assets into account does not amount to giving the statute retrospective effect, because the section merely prescribes a mode of proof for an offence tried after the Act came into force. The High Court's contrary view was therefore inconsistent with the settled interpretation of the provision.

Conclusion: Pre-1964 assets could be taken into account for the purpose of Section 5(1)(e), and the High Court erred in excluding them.

Ratio Decidendi: In assessing disproportionate assets under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, property and pecuniary resources acquired before commencement of the Act may be considered, because the provision operates as a rule of evidence and not as a retrospective creation of liability.

---