The Supreme Court has ruled that once the prosecution establishes that a public servant possesses assets disproportionate to known sources of income, the burden shifts to the accused to explain how the excess wealth was acquired, making it clear that investigating agencies are not required to embark on an “endless search” for every conceivable source of income that an accused may subsequently claim.
The ruling came while dismissing an appeal by V Gopalakrishnan, a former Kerala government official convicted of possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court upheld his conviction and directed him to surrender within two weeks to serve the remainder of his sentence.
The court said the law places the responsibility on the accused to establish, through credible and verifiable material, that the assets were acquired from lawful sources, as the origin and mode of acquisition of undisclosed wealth are matters within the public servant’s special knowledge.
The Supreme Court found no merit in these arguments. It noted that the accused had failed to produce cogent material to substantiate his claim that the building had cost substantially less than the prosecution’s estimate. A notebook containing sporadic entries of construction expenses was insufficient, particularly as he could not substantiate those entries in his testimony.
In the case before it, Gopalakrishnan had joined government service as a lower division clerk in May 1971 and was promoted to sub-registrar in September 1993. The prosecution alleged that he accumulated assets disproportionate to his known income between January 1993 and January 2001. After accounting for the increase in assets, the prosecution calculated disproportionate assets to be about 51.88% of the family’s income.
The court clarified that the prosecution must first establish the foundational facts of the case, including a public servant’s known sources of income and the assets, financial resources and expenditure attributable to him during the relevant period. Once the prosecution demonstrates a disproportion between the assets and the known income, a prima facie case is established and the evidentiary burden shifts to the accused. The statutory framework does not require investigators to negate every hypothetical source of income or pursue undisclosed claims that surface only after the disproportionate assets have been detected.
The bench said the expression “known sources of income” refers to lawful sources known to the prosecution through a proper investigation, and not every source of income that an accused may claim to possess. “Once the prosecution establishes the disproportion between the assets possessed and the known sources of income, the burden squarely rests upon the accused to demonstrate, through cogent and reliable material, that the assets in question were acquired from lawful and legitimate sources,” said the bench, adding that failure to provide a satisfactory explanation would entitle the court to draw an adverse inference against the accused.
