Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer
Rule established
Under S.106 IEA (now S.106 BSA), when a fact is especially within the knowledge of the accused (such as source of disproportionate assets), the burden of proving it lies on that person.
Facts
- The accused, a public servant, was charged with criminal misappropriation of government funds.
- The prosecution proved that the accused possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
- The accused did not offer any satisfactory explanation for the source of these assets.
- He argued that the prosecution had not discharged its initial burden of proving that the specific amounts were misappropriated.
- The accused contended that S.106 cannot shift the burden of the offence itself to the accused.
Issue
- Whether S.106 IEA can place the burden on the accused to explain the source of disproportionate assets, and what is the relationship between S.106 and S.101 (general burden on prosecution)?
Held
- S.106 IEA does not relieve the prosecution of its initial burden of establishing the basic facts of the offence under S.101.
- However, once the prosecution establishes basic facts (such as possession of disproportionate assets), facts especially within the knowledge of the accused are his to prove.
- The source of income and explanations for wealth are facts peculiarly within the knowledge of the person who earned or received them.
- S.106 is an exception to the general rule, not a substitute for prosecution evidence.
- If the accused fails to discharge this burden, the court may draw an adverse inference.
Ratio Decidendi
S.106 operates on the principle that it would be unjust to require a party to prove a negative or a fact that is impossible for them to know but easy for the other party to establish. When the prosecution proves the external fact (disproportion), the internal fact (source) lies locked within the knowledge of the accused. Requiring the prosecution to prove the negative (that no lawful source exists) would be demanding the impossible. S.106 therefore operates as a necessary supplement to S.101, not as its substitute; the general burden on the prosecution remains, but specific facts within the accused's special knowledge shift to the accused.
How to use it in an exam
- Part A (6 marks): Explain S.106 IEA with an example. Cite Shambhu Nath Mehra as the leading case explaining that S.106 supplements but does not replace S.101.
- Part B (15 marks): Fundamental case for any essay on shifting burdens. Discuss the interplay between S.101, S.102, and S.106. Use alongside S.106 applications in disproportionate assets cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Address the constitutional validity argument (does S.106 violate presumption of innocence?).
Source
Source: SCC Online
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.