Disproportionate assets proof fails where disclosed income and reasonable household expenditure are properly counted in the assessment.

In a disproportionate assets prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court reappreciated the income and expenditure record and held that disclosed and proved sources of income, including the spouse's earnings, a declared gift, agricultural income, and prior service earnings, had to be counted in the accused's income. It further held that, without any statutory rule or proved guideline, household expenditure could not be fixed arbitrarily at 60% in the facts of a rural, agricultural background, and should have been assessed at 40%. On that revised calculation, the prosecution failed to prove disproportionate assets beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved that the appellant was in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Analysis: The Court reappreciated the income and expenditure calculation for the check period and held that several items excluded by the prosecution and the trial court were supported by evidence, including the wife's income and a gift of Rs. 3,80,000/- already disclosed in income tax returns and to the department, agricultural income, and prior service earnings. The Court also held that, in the absence of any rule or guideline fixing a higher deduction, household expenditure ought to have been taken at 40% rather than 60% in the facts of the case, especially considering the appellant's rural and agricultural background. On that revised assessment, the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had disproportionate assets.

Conclusion: The prosecution did not prove the offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; the conviction was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were set aside and the appellant was acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: In a disproportionate assets case, income lawfully disclosed and satisfactorily proved from known sources must be included in the accused's income, and in the absence of any statutory or proved guideline, household expenditure cannot be arbitrarily fixed at an excessive percentage to sustain the charge.

---