https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175284 In a disproportionate assets prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must first prove that a public servant possessed pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to known sources of income; only then does the burden shift to the accused to account for them. The Court noted that the accused produced documentary support for loans, a gift and sale proceeds, and the prosecution failed to rebut those materials with reliable evidence. The allegation that jewellery and certain bank balances were benami assets also failed, because benami ownership must be proved by definite and convincing evidence, not conjecture. After the proved deductions, the remaining disproportion was insufficient to sustain the conviction. en-us Fri, 17 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Nov 2015 16:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175284 In a disproportionate assets prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must first prove that a public servant possessed pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to known sources of income; only then does the burden shift to the accused to account for them. The Court noted that the accused produced documentary support for loans, a gift and sale proceeds, and the prosecution failed to rebut those materials with reliable evidence. The allegation that jewellery and certain bank balances were benami assets also failed, because benami ownership must be proved by definite and convincing evidence, not conjecture. After the proved deductions, the remaining disproportion was insufficient to sustain the conviction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 17 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175284