1981 (5) TMI 133 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a public servant charged with having disproportionate assets for which he cannot satisfactorily account can be convicted under s. 5(2) read with s. 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. Whether the burden of disproving the charge shifts to the accused once the prosecution establishes possession of disproportionate assets.
3. Whether the properties found in the respondent's possession could belong to his father-in-law, Hanumanthu.

Summary:

Issue 1: Conviction under s. 5(2) read with s. 5(1)(e) of the Act
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its interpretation of s. 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The High Court wrongly concluded that the prosecution must disprove all possible sources of income to convict a public servant for possession of disproportionate assets. The Court clarified that the burden is on the accused to satisfactorily account for the disproportionate assets once the prosecution establishes possession of such assets.

Issue 2: Burden of Proof
The Court explained that the burden of proof in criminal trials generally lies on the prosecution. However, in cases under s. 5(1)(e), once the prosecution proves the possession of disproportionate assets, the burden shifts to the accused to account for the acquisition of such assets. This burden is not as onerous as proving innocence beyond reasonable doubt but is discharged by establishing a preponderance of probability.

Issue 3: Ownership of Properties
The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and found that the High Court's conclusion'that it was not improbable that the properties found in the respondent's possession belonged to his father-in-law, Hanumanthu'was not manifestly wrong or perverse. The evidence presented by the respondent, including testimonies and documents, supported the claim that Hanumanthu was a man of substantial means and had left significant property to his children, which included the respondent's wife.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the respondent by the High Court was upheld. The Supreme Court found no compelling reasons to interfere with the High Court's order, given the overwhelming evidence suggesting that the properties could belong to the respondent's father-in-law, Hanumanthu.