Only proving that there is a disprportion or sizable disproportion is not enough to convict a government servant. It has to be further proved that disproportion is so much that conviction is justified.
This law is not new. Since 1988 Supreme Court has held that
"..But on the question whether the event of the disproportion is such as to justify a conviction for criminal misconduct....a somewhat liberal view requires to be taken of what proportion of assets in excess of the known sources of income constitutes "disproportion" for purpose of Section 5(1)(e) of the Act"
The case law on subject has been once again restated in case of A.T.B vs State of Sikkim 2011(2)scale 735 on page 748 where Supreme Court set aside a conviction where disproportion proved was not so much as to justify a conviction.
Haresh Raichura
17/6/2012
This law is not new. Since 1988 Supreme Court has held that
"..But on the question whether the event of the disproportion is such as to justify a conviction for criminal misconduct....a somewhat liberal view requires to be taken of what proportion of assets in excess of the known sources of income constitutes "disproportion" for purpose of Section 5(1)(e) of the Act"
The case law on subject has been once again restated in case of A.T.B vs State of Sikkim 2011(2)scale 735 on page 748 where Supreme Court set aside a conviction where disproportion proved was not so much as to justify a conviction.
Haresh Raichura
17/6/2012
