Principles clarified re “known sources of income” under S. 13(1)(e) PC Act, 1988, and stage at which onus to account satisfactorily for the money to be discharged by accused. Held, Section 13(1)(e) of the Act 1988 makes a departure from the principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden will always lie on the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offences charged and never shifts on the accused to disprove the charge framed against him. The legal effect of Section 13(1)(e) is that it is for the prosecution to establish that the accused was in possession of properties disproportionate to his known sources of income but the term “known sources of income” would mean the sources known to the prosecution and not the sources known to the accused and within the knowledge of the accused. It is for the accused to account satisfactorily for the money/assets in his hands. The onus in this regard is on the accused to give satisfactory explanation. The accused cannot make an attempt to discharge this onus upon him at the stage of Section 239 of the CrPC. At the stage of Section 239 of the CrPC, the Court has to only look into the prima facie case and decide whether the case put up by the prosecution is groundless. Para 83
[State of T.N. v. R. Soundirarasu, (2023) 6 SCC 768]
Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments.
Subscribe here: https://relegal.in/subscribe/