The Supreme Court  held that once the prosecution shows a public servant’s assets are out of line with his known income, it is for the accused to give a satisfactory explanation. If he cannot, the court can draw an adverse inference against him.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva made the observations while dismissing an appeal by V. Gopalakrishnan, a former sub-registrar from Kerala who was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The bench explained how the burden of proof works in such cases.

The prosecution must first establish the public servant’s known sources of income and the assets found with him.

Once that shows a disproportion, a prima facie case stands made out, and the onus moves to the accused.

The court said this is because the real sources of any undisclosed income lie within the accused’s own knowledge. It said the law does not ask the prosecution to “negate every hypothetical source” from which an accused may later claim to have earned money.

Such a requirement, the bench said, would make the provision unworkable.

The accused must instead come forward with reliable material showing the assets came from lawful sources.

The phrase “known sources of income”, the court clarified, means sources known to the prosecution. The words “cannot satisfactorily account” refer to the accused’s duty to explain.

The ruling reinforces how courts handle disproportionate assets cases against public servants.

It makes clear that investigators are not expected to chase every explanation that surfaces only at trial.

Defence lawyers will note, however, that the court also stressed the prosecution must first prove the disproportion.