https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307367 The Supreme Court set aside the conviction under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, due to the prosecution's failure to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The Court highlighted flaws in the calculation of the appellant's income and expenditure, as well as the unreliability of the prosecution's evidence. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the importance of presenting concrete and reliable evidence in cases involving allegations of possession of disproportionate assets by public servants. en-us Wed, 09 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Apr 2023 21:30:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307367 The Supreme Court set aside the conviction under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, due to the prosecution's failure to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The Court highlighted flaws in the calculation of the appellant's income and expenditure, as well as the unreliability of the prosecution's evidence. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the importance of presenting concrete and reliable evidence in cases involving allegations of possession of disproportionate assets by public servants. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307367