As per case facts, Accused No. 1, an agriculture supervisor, was charged with amassing disproportionate property during his service, with his wife and son accused of abetment. The prosecution alleged ... significantly higher assets than known income sources and expenses could account for. The Trial Court acquitted all accused, leading to the State's appeal. The question arose whether the prosecution adequately proved the charges, considering the validity of the prosecution sanction, the accuracy of asset valuation, and whether the accused were given a chance to explain their acquisitions and other income sources like irrigated land. Finally, the Court found the sanction invalid due to lack of verification and no show-cause notice. It also noted the prosecution's reliance on approximate valuations by non-experts and failure to seek explanations from the accused. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the acquittal due to the prosecution's inability to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.