The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed an appeal by V. Gopalakrishanan, a former Sub Registrar in Kerala, against his conviction in a disproportionate assets case. A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva found no fault in the Kerala High Court’s decision. It also directed him to surrender within two weeks.
Background
Gopalakrishanan joined government service as a Lower Division Clerk in 1971 and became a Sub Registrar in 1993. The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau alleged that between January 1, 1993 and January 16, 2001, he and his family held assets beyond his known income. The family’s assets were valued at about Rs 1.94 lakh at the start of this “check period” and about Rs 12.38 lakh at the end. After counting income and expenses, roughly Rs 5.25 lakh remained unexplained, about 51.88 per cent of the family’s income.
In 2009, the trial court held him guilty under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment. On January 29, 2025, the High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to one year and a fine of Rs 2 lakh, citing the long delay and his age.
Before the Supreme Court, Gopalakrishanan argued that the case rested on estimates, not actual evidence. He disputed the household expenses calculated from a price index, saying it reflected an agricultural family, not a government servant’s. He also challenged the Rs 8.59 lakh valuation of his building, which was based on Public Works Department rates, and claimed the real cost was Rs 6.69 lakh.
The Bench noted that the notebook he relied on contained only scattered entries and was not shown to be kept in the ordinary course of business. He also could not support its entries in the witness box. The Court added that even if both his objections were accepted for argument’s sake, the unexplained assets would still be over 33 per cent and 26 per cent of income respectively.
On the law, the Court said the prosecution must first establish the public servant’s known income and assets. Once a mismatch appears, the burden shifts to the accused. The Bench observed:
“Once the prosecution establishes the disproportion between the assets possessed and the known sources of income, the burden squarely rests upon the accused to demonstrate, through cogent and reliable material, that the assets in question were acquired from lawful and legitimate sources. In the absence of such explanation, the prosecution cannot be faulted for its inability to establish facts which lie exclusively within the knowledge of the accused himself.”
Applying this to the case, the Court said:
“As noticed hereinabove, Prosecution has established that the Appellant accumulated assets disproportionate to his known source of income by over 51%. Even if the explanation given by the Appellant were to be taken on a demurrer, the disproportionate assets exceed 26% of his known sources of income. Looked at from any angle, Appellant has failed to render a satisfactory explanation to the disproportionate assets accumulated during the check period.”
Finding no weakness in the trial court’s and High Court’s views, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It vacated his interim bail of March 28, 2025, and gave him two weeks to surrender before the trial court to serve the remaining sentence.
Case Details
- Case Title: V. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 5399 of 2025
- Judges: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
- Decision Date: October 28, 2026
