Supreme Court: The expression "known sources of income" occurring in Section 5(1)(e) of The prevention of Corruption Act mean the sources known to the prosecution and not sources relied upon and known to the accused.

  Even after Section 5(3) was deleted and Section 5(1)(e) was enacted, this Court in the case of Wasudeo Ram Chandra Kaidalwar (supra) has observed that the expression "known sources of income" occurring in Section 5(1)(e) has a definite legal connotation which in the context must mean the sources known to the prosecution and not sources relied upon and known to the accused. Section 5(1)(e), it was observed by this Court, casts a burden on the accused for it uses the words "for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account". The onus is on the accused to account for and satisfactorily explain the assets.

{Para 40}

The first part of the section casts a burden on the prosecution and the second on the accused. When Section 5(1)(e) uses the words "for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account", it is implied that the burden is on such public servant to account for the sources for the acquisition of disproportionate assets. The High Court, therefore, was in error in holding that a public servant charged for having disproportionate assets in his possession for which he cannot satisfactorily account, cannot be convicted of an offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Act unless the prosecution disproves all possible sources of income.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1452 – 1453 OF 2022 

STATE Vs  R. SOUNDIRARASU ETC.

 Coram: DINESH MAHESHWARI; J., J.B. PARDIWALA; J.

Author: J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

Dated: SEPTEMBER 5, 2022.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page