Judgement

S. K. DAS, J. : This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated March 27, 1958, whereby the said High Court maintained the conviction of the appellant under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (2 of 1947), but reduced the sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment passed on the appellants by the Special Judge, Kanpur to two years rigorous imprisonment.

2. The short facts are these. The appellant, Surajpal Singh, was employed in the Police Department of the Uttar Pradesh Government. He started his service as a constable on a salary of Rs. 13 per month from August 1, 1930. In 1946 his pay was increased to Rs. 46 per month. He was appointed a Head constable on a salary of Rs. 50 per month in 1947. He officiated as a Sub-Inspector of Police sometime in 1948 and 1949 on a salary of Rs. 150 per month. On March 1, 1949, he was reverted to his post of Head constable. Between the dates February 27, 1951, and September 9, 1952, he was posted as a Head constable attached to the Sadar Malkhana, Kanpur. The charge against him was that in that capacity he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated or otherwise converted to his own use many articles, principally those seized in connection with excise offence kept in deposit in the said Malkhana. These articles included opium, bottles of liquor, etc. The charge further stated that a sum of Rs. 9,284/1/0 was recovered on a search of his house on September 9 and 10, 1952, and this amount was disproportionate to the known sources of income of the appellant. There was an allegation by the prosecution that the acts of dishonest misappropriation etc. were committed by the appellant in conspiracy with two other persons called Bhagawat Singh and Gulab Singh. Therefore, the charges against the appellant were (1) for the offence of conspiracy under S. 120B of the Indian Penal Code ; (2) for the offence under S. 5(1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1947, for the acts of dishonest misappropriation or user, read with S. 5(2) of the said Act; and (3) for an offence under S. 465 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of a particular entry said to have been forged in the Register of Properties kept in the Sadar Malkhana.

3. The learned Special Judge who tried the appellant, Bhagawat Singh and Gulab Singh, recorded an order of acquittal in respect of the latter two persons. As to the appellant, he was also acquitted of all the charges except the charge under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On this charge the learned Special Judge recorded an order of conviction, but this was based on the sole ground that the appellant had failed to account satisfactorily for the possession of Rs. 9,284/1/0 which according to the finding of the learned Special Judge, was disproportionate to the known sources of income of the appellant. It should be noted here that the learned Special Judge held the appellant not guilty of the various acts of dishonest misappropriation or user alleged against him in respect of the properties kept in the Sadar Malkhana.

4. In his appeal to the High Court the appellant urged various grounds, one of which was that he could not be convicted on the rule of presumption laid down in sub-s. (3) of S. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, when on the only charge of criminal misconduct alleged under S. 5(1) (c) of the said Act he had been found not guilty. The High Court repelled this contention and upheld the conviction of the appellant but reduced the sentence.

5. The principal question before us is whether in the circumstances of this case, the conviction of the appellant on the charge under sub-s. (2) of S. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, by invoking the rule of presumption as laid down in sub-s. (3) of that Section, is correct.

6. It is convenient to read here S. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, in so far as it is relevant for our purpose :

"S. 5(1). A public serv