1)In a case of this kind, the foundational requirement is the correctness of the

valuation of the property being the basis of the assessment of the alleged disproportionate assets.

2) case of State of

Maharashtra vs. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar :

(1981)3 SCC 199,

Paragraph 13 referred to is reproduced below:-

“13. …………………..The ingredients of the

offence of criminal misconduct under Section 5(2)

read with Section 5(1)(e) are the possession of

pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to

the known sources of income for which the public

servant cannot satisfactorily account. To

substantiate the charge, the prosecution must prove

18

the following facts before it can bring a case under

Section 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 proves

as to what were his known sources of income i.e.

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 Section 5(1)(e)

is complete, unless the accused is able to account

for such resources or property. The burden then

shifts to the accused to satisfactorily account for his

possession of disproportionate assets. The extent

and nature of burden of proof resting upon the

public servant to be found in possession of

disproportionate assets under Section 5(1)(e) cannot

be higher than the test laid by the court in Jhingan

case, i.e. to establish his case by a preponderance of

probability………………” [emphasis supplied]

3) without house panchanma the prosecution will fail to establish that you had assets exceeding your income

In C.S.D. Swami (Supra), it has been held

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in Section 5(3) of

the P.C. Act, 1947, a complete departure has been

made from criminal jurisprudence still the initial burden

lies on the prosecution and in that context it has been

observed as follows:-

“(4) It is true that S. 5(3) of the Act, does

not create a new offence but only lays down a rule

of evidence, enabling the court to raise a

presumption of guilt in certain circumstances – a

rule which is a complete departure from the

established principle of criminal jurisprudence that

the burden always lies on the prosecution to prove

all the ingredients of the offence charged, and that

the burden never shifts on to the accused to

disprove the charge framed against him. …..”

If the panchnama isn't formally proved by way of exhibiting the same the da case will be adversely affected.

However if there is other cogent evidence to support da allegations then nothing to worry.

The house panchnama is the base for this case and an essential document.

Non production of the original house panchanama report may prove fatal to the prosecution case and may benefit the accused when the prosecution is not able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts.

The benefit of doubt will be given to accused, in the result he may be acquitted

yes, it is mandatory because on the based of that punchnama the case was registered, the accused may be get acquittal.

It is absolutely necessary to produce the house search panchnama. If it has not been produced then this is a circumstance which goes on to demolish the case of prosecution.

1. Yes, it is the only document based on which the said DA case was filed,

2. It is mandatory to submit the said document in original,

3. In absence of the same, the DA case is liable to be dismissed