https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168329 In disproportionate assets prosecutions, once the prosecution proves possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to known sources of income to the required criminal standard, it need not disprove every possible source of income. The choice of the check period is not controlled by any fixed rule and may validly be confined to a ten-year span if that provides a true and comprehensive picture of the accused's resources and assets. Beneficial ownership of a joint deposit cannot be presumed merely from the first-named depositor; it depends on the deposit terms and surrounding material. On the facts reappraised by the HC, the excess, if any, was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, so the acquittal was not interfered with and benefit of doubt was maintained. en-us Tue, 10 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Feb 2015 12:19:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168329 In disproportionate assets prosecutions, once the prosecution proves possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to known sources of income to the required criminal standard, it need not disprove every possible source of income. The choice of the check period is not controlled by any fixed rule and may validly be confined to a ten-year span if that provides a true and comprehensive picture of the accused's resources and assets. Beneficial ownership of a joint deposit cannot be presumed merely from the first-named depositor; it depends on the deposit terms and surrounding material. On the facts reappraised by the HC, the excess, if any, was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, so the acquittal was not interfered with and benefit of doubt was maintained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 10 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168329