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

Under which circumstances the court should not be frame charge against accused in disproportionate asset case?

Janaki Ballav Patnaik v. State of Orissa, 1995 CRI.L.J. 1110, wherein this Court had held that when a

source of income of the accused or his wife was known to the

prosecution and the prosecution has failed to take that source into consideration and that income would have a vital bearing  on the framing of charge, the Court would be fully justified in refusing to frame the charge, leaving it open for the prosecution to further investigate into the matter and if materials justified to file a fresh charge-sheet.

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 161 of 2014

Sri Rajendra Kumar Pati  Vs  Union of India

PRESENT :
SHRI JUSTICE S.C. PARIJA

Date of Judgment : 06.01.2015
Citation;2015 CRLJ1392 Orissa

Print Page

What is meaning of known sources of income under prevention of corruption Act?

The expression "known sources of income" in Section 13(1) (e) of the Act has two elements, first the income must be received from a lawful source and secondly the receipt of such income must have been intimated in accordance with the provisions of law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to the public servant. In N. Ramakrishnaiah (Supra), while dealing with said expression, it was observed:-

"...For the public servant, whatever return he gets of his service, will be the primary item of his income. Other income which can conceivably be income qua the public servant will be in the regular receipt from (1) his property, or (b) his investment."

The categories so enumerated are illustrative. Receipt by way of share in the partition of ancestral property or bequest under a will or advances from close relations would come within the expression "known sources of income" provided the second condition stands fulfilled that is to say, such receipts were duly intimated to the authorities as prescribed.

Supreme Court of India

Kedari Lal vs State Of Madhya pradesh on 23 March, 2015

Bench: Dipak Misra, Uday Umesh Lalit
Citation;2015CriLJ4045, 2015(2)Crimes142(SC), 2015(2)JCC1182, 2015(2)JLJ171(SC), 2015(2)RCR(Criminal)477, 2015(4)SCALE175, 2015 (5) SCJ 597

   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.782 OF 2011

Print Page