https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187496 Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was treated as a rule of evidence for proving criminal misconduct under section 5(2). The Court held that assets acquired before the Act could be considered for the limited purpose of assessing disproportionate property, without making the provision retrospective. Property standing in the names of the accused's wife and son was also treated as relevant where it was held on his behalf. Once disproportionate assets were proved, the statutory presumption arose and the burden shifted to the accused to give a satisfactory explanation. On the facts, the explanation failed, the presumption was not rebutted, and the conviction and minimum sentence were upheld. en-us Wed, 28 Aug 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Oct 2016 18:27:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187496 Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was treated as a rule of evidence for proving criminal misconduct under section 5(2). The Court held that assets acquired before the Act could be considered for the limited purpose of assessing disproportionate property, without making the provision retrospective. Property standing in the names of the accused's wife and son was also treated as relevant where it was held on his behalf. Once disproportionate assets were proved, the statutory presumption arose and the burden shifted to the accused to give a satisfactory explanation. On the facts, the explanation failed, the presumption was not rebutted, and the conviction and minimum sentence were upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 28 Aug 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187496