Disproportionate assets cases: prosecution need not disprove every income source, and the accused must explain assets on probability.

In disproportionate-assets prosecutions, "known sources of income" refers to sources known to the prosecution, and once it proves public servant status, possession of assets, the known sources of income, and the disproportion, it need not negate every possible source. The accused then bears an evidential burden to account for the assets, which may be discharged on a preponderance of probability, including matters within special knowledge. On the facts, the explanation that the properties belonged to the accused's father-in-law was found reasonably probable, so the acquittal was sustained and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a public servant charged under section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 can be convicted only if the prosecution disproves all possible sources of income; (ii) whether, once disproportionate assets are proved, the burden shifts to the accused to satisfactorily account for the assets and the extent of that burden; (iii) whether, on the facts, the respondent had established a probable defence that the properties found with him belonged to his father-in-law.

Issue (i): Whether a public servant charged under section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 can be convicted only if the prosecution disproves all possible sources of income.

Analysis: The expression "known sources of income" was held to mean sources known to the prosecution. Section 5(1)(e) was treated as a self-contained provision in which the first part casts an initial burden on the prosecution to prove public servant status, possession of pecuniary resources or property, the known sources of income, and the disproportion between the two. Once those foundational facts are shown, the prosecution is not required to negate every possible source of income, especially matters within the special knowledge of the accused.

Conclusion: The prosecution need not disprove all possible sources of income.

Issue (ii): Whether, once disproportionate assets are proved, the burden shifts to the accused to satisfactorily account for the assets and the extent of that burden.

Analysis: The rule under the provision was distinguished from the ordinary criminal burden on the prosecution. After the prosecution establishes the essential ingredients, the burden shifts to the accused to account for the assets. That burden is evidential and may be discharged on a preponderance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was relied upon to explain that facts specially within the accused's knowledge fall upon him to prove.

Conclusion: The burden shifts to the accused, and it is discharged by showing a preponderance of probability.

Issue (iii): Whether, on the facts, the respondent had established a probable defence that the properties found with him belonged to his father-in-law.

Analysis: The evidence regarding the father-in-law's affluence, his association with the Zamindar, the testimony of witnesses, and the circumstances surrounding the custody of property were found sufficient to create a doubt whether the assets belonged to the respondent. The High Court's appraisal of evidence was not shown to be manifestly wrong or perverse, and no compelling reason was found to interfere with the acquittal.

Conclusion: The respondent had established a probable defence.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the acquittal was sustained because the respondent's explanation was found reasonably probable on the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for possession of disproportionate assets under section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, once the prosecution proves the accused's public servant status, possession of assets, the known sources of income, and disproportion, the burden shifts to the accused to account for the assets on a preponderance of probability, and the prosecution is not required to disprove every possible source of income.

---