Disproportionate assets burden of proof requires foundational facts first; conviction cannot rest on altered calculations without a fresh charge.

In a disproportionate assets prosecution, the prosecution must first prove beyond reasonable doubt the foundational facts showing possession of property or pecuniary resources disproportionate to known sources of income; only then does any duty arise on the accused to explain them. Here, the figures relied on were based on conjectural estimates, omitted material income components, and lacked a reliable evidentiary foundation, so the charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. A conviction also cannot rest on a materially altered computation without a fresh charge, and the accused was not confronted with that shifted basis. The conviction and sentence were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the conviction for criminal misconduct based on disproportionate assets could stand when the prosecution failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the appellant's income and assets as originally charged; (ii) whether the appellant could be convicted on a computation materially different from the charge without framing a fresh charge.

Issue (i): whether the conviction for criminal misconduct based on disproportionate assets could stand when the prosecution failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the appellant's income and assets as originally charged.

Analysis: The prosecution was required to establish that the public servant was in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income during the relevant period, and only thereafter would any obligation arise on the accused to satisfactorily account for the same. The evidence accepted by the courts below proceeded on conjectural estimates of salary, agricultural income, and household expenditure, while the prosecution itself had omitted material income components. The record did not furnish a reliable foundation for the figures ultimately adopted.

Conclusion: The charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Issue (ii): whether the appellant could be convicted on a computation materially different from the charge without framing a fresh charge.

Analysis: The conviction ultimately rested on a modified factual basis, different from the allegations contained in the original charge. The appellant was not confronted with the altered complexion of the accusation through a fresh charge, and adverse inference could not lawfully be drawn on that shifted basis. A criminal conviction cannot rest on an amorphous charge or on speculative reconstruction of the prosecution case.

Conclusion: The conviction on the altered basis was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution failed to discharge the primary burden required for an offence of disproportionate assets, and the appellant's conviction and sentence could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for possession of disproportionate assets, the burden initially lies on the prosecution to prove foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt; only after that burden is discharged does any duty arise on the accused to account for the assets.

---