#disproportionate assets

Gauhati High Court rules that offences involving disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act do not require prior sanction under Section 17A, reinforcing that quashing proceedings at the trial stage should be exceptional. This holding clarifies the procedural safeguards for prosecuting public servants accused of amassing assets beyond known sources of income.

The Kerala High Court has ruled that when a public servant sells jointly owned immovable property, only the portion of sale proceeds attributable to their unexplained income - not a fixed 50% - qualifies as disproportionate asset under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This clarifies asset accounting for public servants and prevents automatic presumption of guilt based on co-ownership, reinforcing the need for direct nexus between income and asset accumulation.

Bombay High Court holds that a second FIR under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is valid if it alleges a separate offence with distinct ingredients, even if arising from the same investigation. The ruling clarifies that discharge applications cannot succeed merely on the ground of a prior FIR, reinforcing the need for specific evidence in disproportionate assets cases against public servants.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court acquitted a sanitary inspector in a disproportionate assets case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case because it relied on inadmissible evidence and unjustifiably dismissed credible defence claims about cash gifts and agricultural income. This reinforces that mere asset disparity is insufficient without reliable, properly evaluated evidence - a critical safeguard for public servants facing corruption charges.

Bombay High Court dismisses appeal in disproportionate assets case, holding that prosecution must establish legitimate income sources and seek accused's explanation before invoking Section 13(1)(e) PCA.