In Brief
A Sub-Engineer in the Irrigation Department was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act for acquiring assets allegedly disproportionate to his known income. The Supreme Court allowed his appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The courts below had made speculative calculations regarding omitted salary periods and agricultural income, and convicted him on a charge materially different from the one framed. The Court held that the prosecution must first prove a public servant possessed disproportionate assets before requiring explanation; absent such proof, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Conviction and sentence set aside."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.