https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168330 A Judge of the superior judiciary is treated as a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, because the Act adopts the wider IPC definition and constitutional status does not create immunity from criminal prosecution. For sanction, the competent authority is the President, as removal of such Judges lies with the President under the Constitution, with consultation of the Chief Justice of India noted as a safeguard. The article also explains that section 5(1)(e) concerns possession of assets disproportionate to known income: the prosecution must first prove disproportion, after which the accused must satisfactorily account for the property. It further states that the charge-sheet need not contain a quasi-adjudicatory finding on the explanation. en-us Thu, 25 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168330 A Judge of the superior judiciary is treated as a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, because the Act adopts the wider IPC definition and constitutional status does not create immunity from criminal prosecution. For sanction, the competent authority is the President, as removal of such Judges lies with the President under the Constitution, with consultation of the Chief Justice of India noted as a safeguard. The article also explains that section 5(1)(e) concerns possession of assets disproportionate to known income: the prosecution must first prove disproportion, after which the accused must satisfactorily account for the property. It further states that the charge-sheet need not contain a quasi-adjudicatory finding on the explanation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 25 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168330