https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168328 Statutory presumption of criminal misconduct arose once the prosecution proved pecuniary resources disproportionate to the accused's known sources of income, and the accused had to satisfactorily rebut that presumption with proof, not merely a plausible explanation. The presumption was not rebutted, so it stood against the appellant. Failure to prove specific acts of bribery under the separate bribery provision did not prevent conviction for criminal misconduct, because that offence is distinct and does not require proof of the earlier bribery ingredients once the statutory conditions are met. The conviction was therefore sustained and the appeal failed. en-us Thu, 21 May 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Feb 2015 11:57:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168328 Statutory presumption of criminal misconduct arose once the prosecution proved pecuniary resources disproportionate to the accused's known sources of income, and the accused had to satisfactorily rebut that presumption with proof, not merely a plausible explanation. The presumption was not rebutted, so it stood against the appellant. Failure to prove specific acts of bribery under the separate bribery provision did not prevent conviction for criminal misconduct, because that offence is distinct and does not require proof of the earlier bribery ingredients once the statutory conditions are met. The conviction was therefore sustained and the appeal failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 21 May 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168328