Question
Which is required to prove disproportionate assets according to the PC Act?
Solution
Under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, prosecution for possession of disproportionate assets requires proving that the public servant possesses assets disproportionate to their known sources of lawful income. Once disproportion is established, the burden shifts to the accused to provide a satisfactory explanation of the source of the assets. The law does not require evidence of the precise source of illegal income, prior bribe demand, or habitual bribery. This shift in burden ensures that public servants can be held accountable while also giving them an opportunity to demonstrate lawful acquisition. Option B accurately describes the evidentiary requirement. Options A, C, D, and E are incorrect because they either impose an unnecessary evidentiary burden on the prosecution or misstate statutory requirements.
- As per section 81 of IPC motive should be___________________
- Which type of share is issued by a company to its existing shareholders without receipt of any consideration from shareholders for issuance of such share?
- A person who finds goods belonging to another, and takes them into his custody, is subject to the same responsibility as a____________
- What is the primary focus of Part 2 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code?
- Contingent agreements to do or not to do anything, if an impossible event happens, are void _________________
- Under what conditions can an arbitrator be challenged?
- 'A' a soldier, fires on a mob by the order of his superior officers in conformity with the commands of the law. A has committed no offence, his defense com...
- According to the definition provided in Section 2(11) of the BNS, 2023, an act is NOT considered to have been done in 'Good Faith' if it is done:
- Which of the following Articles of the Indian Constitution talks about right of a person against Ex post Facto Laws?
- Which statement with reference to section 101 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, is wrong?