The legal position is well settled that in case assets possessed by the accused in excess of surplus income are less than 10% of the total income, the same cannot be said to be disproportionate to his known source of income. (Krishnanand Agnihotri vs State of MP3 and Krishna Reddy vs State, Deputy Superintendent of Police Hyderabad 4).

2) It is settled position of law that one third of the income of the person concerned is to be taken into account for estimating household expenditure. In Sajjan Singh vs State, (Supra) wherein net income was  Rs.1,03,000/-, it was observed that at least Rs.36,000/- must have been spent in living expenses. This criteria of taking one third income as house hold expenditure has been consistently followed by the Courts as well as investigating agencies.

If you had engaged a counsel to defend your case he will take care of position of law. 

G.RAJAGANAPATHY 

High Court of Madras 

Yes it's 20 percent

Disproportionate assets is a term used in India to describe a situation where an individual's net economic assets significantly exceed the assets he or she should possess after accounting for the assets that he or she previously held and all legal sources of income.

In B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995  case it was observed that in Krishnanand v. State of M.P. [(1977) 1 SCC 816] had held that 10% of the disproportionate assets need to be deducted in arriving at the finding that the appellant had disproportionate assets. The appellant was found to be in possession of Rs. 1,04,585/-. The disproportionate assets were only to the tune of about Rs. 30,000/-. It would not be axiomatic that 10% would be a cut-off deduction. In an appropriate case deduction could be extended upto 15% and if so extended, the appellant must be held to be not in possession of any disproportionate assets. The gifts made to his wife at the time of their marriage and to his children at the time of their birthdays are not his assets. If these amounts are excluded, which indeed must be excluded, he is not in possession of disproportionate assets. The wife of the appellant is a teacher. The income from her salary and her gifts of the extent of Rs. 21,000/- require to be excluded from his assets. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal on merits were not valid in law. 

Being a public servant, if at any time, during the period of his office, he is proved to have been in possession, by himself or through any person on his behalf, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known source of income, he is enjoined to satisfactorily account for the same.

s.5(1)(e) making, possession of disproportionate assets by a public servant, a substantive offence. Section 5(1)(e) of the Act reads:

5.(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct-

(e) if he or any person on his behalf is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession, for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.

To substantiate the charge, the prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under s. 5(1)(e), namely, (1) it must establish that the accused is a public servant, (2) the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property which were found in his possession, (3) it must be proved as to what were his known sources of income i.e. known to the prosecution, and (4) it must prove quite objectively, that such resources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income. Once these four ingredients are established, the offence of criminal misconduct under s. 5(1)(e) is complete, unless the accused is able to account for such resources or property. 

 - As per C.B.I. vs . Rajender Pal Chopra judgment , the legal position is well settled that in case assets possessed by the accused in excess of surplus income are less than 10% of the total income, the same cannot be said to be disproportionate to his known source of income. (Krishnanand Agnihotri vs State of MP3 and Krishna Reddy vs State, Deputy Superintendent of Police Hyderabad 4). In view of this, in the present case, the accused's possession of excess assets to the tune of 2.75% of total income during the check period falls short of being termed as "disproportionate to his 3(1977) 1 SCC 816 4(1992) 4 SCC 45 CBI Vs. Rajender Pal Chopra 46 out of 47 ID No. 02401R[deleted] known source of income". Therefore, accused cannot be convicted U/S 13 (1).

Dear Client,

The information is too much clustered to answer this question.

Thankyou