Short answer: A disproportionate assets (DA) case alleges that a public servant, or someone on his behalf, holds assets that he cannot satisfactorily account for from known lawful income. The agency picks a “check period” and compares assets at the start and end, income and expenditure during it. The prosecution must first prove the disproportion; the burden then shifts to the officer to explain it.
The law
Since 26 July 2018, Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act makes it criminal misconduct for a public servant to “intentionally enrich himself illicitly during the period of his office”. Explanation 1 presumes illicit enrichment where he or anyone on his behalf holds pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to known sources of income which he cannot satisfactorily account for. Explanation 2 defines known sources of income as income received from lawful sources. Punishment under Section 13(2) is four to ten years and fine. Cases for earlier periods continue under the former Section 13(1)(e).
How the check period works
The statute does not fix the period. In State of Maharashtra v. Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla (10 November 1987), the Supreme Court held there is no general rule; the prosecution selects the period based on the allegations, but it must give a true and comprehensive picture of income and assets, and assets carried over from before the period can be credited if shown to exist.
The usual computation is: assets at the end of the period, minus assets at the start, plus expenditure during the period, compared with income from known lawful sources during the period. The gap, if any, is the alleged disproportion. In Krishnanand Agnihotri v. State of M.P. (1977), the Supreme Court indicated that an excess of less than about ten percent of total income may not be enough to found the charge.
Recent rulings
In Nirankar Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. (reported January 2025), Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale quashed an FIR covering a roughly 25-year check period, holding that income tax returns not shown to be false should be presumed correct and that inflation and changing asset values over long periods must be considered.
In V. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala (2026 INSC 1172, 28 October 2026), Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva upheld a conviction where the excess remained above 26% even after deductions. The court held that the prosecution must prove known sources of income and the disproportion, and need not disprove every source the accused later claims; the duty to explain then lies on the accused under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
Related questions
Are assets of family members counted?
Assets held by anyone on behalf of the public servant can be counted under Explanation 1. Independent assets of a spouse or relative, acquired from their own lawful income, should not be clubbed; this is often a central factual dispute.
Can the officer choose a different check period?
The prosecution selects the period, but the officer can show that it is arbitrary or misses earlier assets or income, which the court can credit.
Do income tax returns help?
Yes. In Nirankar Nath Pandey (2025), the Supreme Court presumed undisputed returns to be correct. Returns, bank records and property returns filed under service rules are often the core of the defence.
Is sanction needed in a DA case?
Yes. Section 19 sanction covers offences under Section 13, which includes the DA offence.
Practical points
- Reconstruct opening assets, income and expenditure year by year with documents.
- Collect income tax returns, annual property returns and intimations made under service conduct rules.
- Check valuation of property and gold against values at the time of acquisition.
- Separate the independent income of family members with their own records.
Sources: India Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Indian Kanoon, Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla, 1987; Indian Kanoon, V. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala, 2026; LiveLaw, Nirankar Nath Pandey, January 2025.
For a confidential discussion on disproportionate assets cases, see Prevention of Corruption Act, CBI and vigilance matters.
General legal information only; not legal advice or solicitation.
