Conviction under Section 13(1)(e) PC Act requires documentary proof of disproportionate assets.

The appellant, a Forest Department employee who served between 1963 and 1988, was prosecuted for allegedly possessing movable and immovable assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

The prosecution alleged that land and other properties valued at approximately Rs. 1,29,000/- had been acquired in the names of the appellant, his wife, and his sons, besides movable assets including a scooter, gun, and generator; the alleged disproportionate assets were stated to be worth Rs. 1,17,690/-.

After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Special Judge, Vigilance, convicted the appellant under Section 13(1)(e) and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment by judgment dated 13 November 2003.

The appellant challenged the conviction, contending that the prosecution had produced no documentary proof of the properties, income, or alleged disproportion.

1. Whether the prosecution established the statutory ingredients of an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, including possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to the appellant’s known sources of income.

2. Whether the appellant’s conviction and sentence required interference because the prosecution failed to substantiate the alleged disproportionate assets through reliable and corroborative evidence.

The Court applied Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as it stood before the 2018 amendment, which criminalised a public servant’s possession, or possession on his behalf, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income and for which he could not satisfactorily account.

The prosecution was required to prove: (i) that the accused was a public servant; (ii) the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property in his possession; (iii) his known sources of income; and (iv) that the resources or property were objectively disproportionate to those sources.

Only after these foundational ingredients were satisfactorily established would the burden shift to the accused to account for the disproportionate assets.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational ingredients of Section 13(1)(e).

Although the witnesses referred to properties, bank passbooks, and articles allegedly found during the search, the prosecution did not produce documentary evidence proving the ownership, valuation, acquisition, income, or precise computation of the alleged disproportionate assets.

The evidence also indicated that the appellant possessed ancestral and agricultural land and had income from agriculture and other activities, but the prosecution did not objectively demonstrate how the alleged assets exceeded his known lawful income.

Consequently, the burden could not shift to the appellant merely on the basis of uncorroborated oral testimony; the trial court had erred by relying on such evidence without adequate documentary corroboration.

The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

As he was on bail, he was discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds and his sureties were also discharged.