Disproportionate assets charge fails where recoveries from jointly occupied premises are plausibly explained as belonging to the spouse.

In a disproportionate assets prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, recoveries from a jointly occupied house could not be attributed to the accused without proof of exclusive possession or ownership. The accused's wife claimed the cash, foreign exchange, gold and bank deposits as her own, and her explanation was supported by her testimony and defence evidence. The Court accepted that explanation as plausible and found that the prosecution had not established that any identifiable part of the wealth belonged to the accused. The conviction was therefore unsustainable and the acquittal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused could be convicted for possession of disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act when the recoveries were from a jointly occupied house and the assets were explained as belonging to his wife.

Analysis: The prosecution was required to establish that the accused was in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The evidence showed that the wife of the accused occupied the premises with him, claimed ownership of the cash, foreign exchange, gold and bank deposits, and gave an explanation supported by her own testimony and other defence evidence. The Court held that where the spouse has accepted responsibility for the unaccounted assets and the prosecution fails to prove exclusive possession of the accused, the recoveries cannot automatically be fastened on the husband. The accused's explanation was found to be plausible and satisfactorily supported by the record, and the prosecution did not establish that any identifiable part of the wealth belonged to the accused.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained and the order of acquittal was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the prosecution did not prove exclusive possession of disproportionate assets by the accused, and the explanation that the assets belonged to his wife was accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for disproportionate assets, recoveries from jointly occupied premises cannot be attributed to the accused unless the prosecution proves exclusive possession or ownership, and a satisfactorily proved explanation that the assets belonged to another family member defeats the charge.

---