https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5166 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. en-us Wed, 07 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 May 2017 12:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5166 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 07 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5166