In Brief
A former Transport Minister and his wife sought discharge from charges of possessing assets disproportionate to their known income under the Prevention of Corruption Act. They explained that much of the wealth came from remuneration and loans from their son. The trial court ordered further investigation into the son's income; the High Court endorsed this but discharged the accused. The Supreme Court held this was premature: pending investigation into the son's finances was indispensable to verify the explanation. Discharge before such investigation amounts to prejudging the charge. The Court set aside the discharge order and restored the trial court's direction for further investigation.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.