In Brief
An appellant, a former Sub-Engineer, was convicted under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 for allegedly possessing assets disproportionate to his known income. Both the trial court and High Court altered the prosecution's original charge calculations through speculative assumptions about his omitted salary and agricultural income. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution bears the burden to first prove disproportionate possession beyond reasonable doubt as a foundational fact; only then can a public servant be required to explain it. Since the prosecution failed to prove this basic element with admissible evidence, the conviction was set aside and the appeal allowed, granting the appellant the benefit of doubt.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.