https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195915 The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that the accused, a public servant investigated for possessing disproportionate assets, was protected by Article 20(1) of the Constitution. The Court clarified that the introduction of Clause (e) to Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in 1964 did not retroactively apply to the accused's actions before the amendment. As a result, the appeal against his acquittal under Section 5(1)(e) was dismissed. en-us Mon, 08 Aug 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Nov 2017 14:44:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195915 The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that the accused, a public servant investigated for possessing disproportionate assets, was protected by Article 20(1) of the Constitution. The Court clarified that the introduction of Clause (e) to Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in 1964 did not retroactively apply to the accused's actions before the amendment. As a result, the appeal against his acquittal under Section 5(1)(e) was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 08 Aug 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195915