The Supreme Court has held that in a disproportionate assets case, the prosecution is not required to rule out every possible source from which the accused may claim to have earned income. Once the disproportion is shown, the burden shifts to the public servant to satisfactorily account for the assets.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva upheld the conviction of V. Gopalakrishanan, a former Sub Registrar, under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Background
Gopalakrishanan joined government service as a Lower Division Clerk on 13.05.1971 and became a Sub Registrar on 22.09.1993. The prosecution alleged that between 01.01.1993 and 16.01.2001, he acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
According to the prosecution’s computation, assets of ₹10,43,822 were acquired during the check period, while likely savings were ₹5,18,693. The disproportionate assets therefore stood at ₹5,25,129, or 51.88% of the income of the appellant and his family.
The Special Judge convicted him on 27.08.2009 and sentenced him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,50,000. On 29.01.2025, the High Court confirmed the conviction but, considering the delay, his age and the trauma undergone, reduced the sentence to one year’s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,00,000.
Appellant’s Contentions
The appellant argued that the prosecution case rested on estimates rather than actual evidence. He disputed the household expenditure figure, contending it was based on the criteria for an agricultural family though he was a government servant. He also claimed the cost of his commercial-cum-residential building was ₹6,69,000, not the ₹8,59,153 taken by the prosecution. He further raised issues about his chit fund remittances, rental income, salary and GPF loans.
Court’s Findings
The Court noted that the appellant produced no cogent material to contradict the building’s valuation, which was based on PWD rates. Even if the claimed excess of ₹1,90,153 were deducted, the disproportionate assets would still be ₹3,34,976, over 33%. Further deducting the claimed household expenditure difference of ₹67,200 would still leave ₹2,67,776, over 26%.
Explaining the burden of proof, the Bench observed:
“Law does not cast an impossible burden upon the prosecution to negate every hypothetical source from which the accused may claim to have derived income.”
Relying on State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Soundirarasu, the Court held that the Explanation to Section 13(1)(e) does not call for an open-ended investigation. It added:
“Law does not require the investigating agency to embark upon inquiries into sources which were never disclosed, never reflected in any record, and never brought to the notice of the authorities during the relevant period.”
The Court said that undisclosed sources of income lie within the special knowledge of the accused. Reading the scheme with Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (Section 106 of the Evidence Act), it held that the public servant must give a satisfactory and credible explanation. It also referred to P. Nallamal v. State and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Awadh Kishore Gupta.
Concluding on the facts, the Bench held:
“Looked at from any angle, Appellant has failed to render a satisfactory explanation to the disproportionate assets accumulated during the check period.”
Outcome
Finding no infirmity in the Trial Court’s conviction or the High Court’s affirmation, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The interim bail granted on 28.03.2025 was vacated, and the appellant was given two weeks to surrender before the Trial Court to serve the remaining sentence.
Case Title: V. Gopalakrishanan v. The State of Kerala
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 5399 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
Date: 28.10.2026
