Pecuniary resources and property acquired before the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 came into force can be taken into consideration for the purpose of S. 5(3) of the Act.

Headnote:
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1947 - S. 5(3) - PRESUMPTION - PECUNIARY RESOURCES AND PROPERTY ACQUIRED BEFORE THE ACT - WHETHER CAN BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION - DISPROPORTIONATE TO KNOWN SOURCES OF INCOME - MEANING OF.
Fact of the Case:

Sajjan Singh, an Overseer in the Irrigation Department, was convicted under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for obtaining illegal gratification from contractors. The prosecution alleged that Sajjan Singh had demanded and received illegal gratification from the partners of the firm Ramdas Chhankanda Ram and M/s. Ramdas Jagdish Ram by withholding their payments and putting various obstacles in the smooth execution of the work entrusted to them. The appellant denied the charges and contended that false evidence had been given by the partners and false and fictitious books prepared by them in support of their own false testimony.
Finding of the Court:

The Special Judge convicted Sajjan Singh under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 5000/-. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Punjab High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence.
Issues: 1. Whether pecuniary resources and property acquired before the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 came into force can be taken into consideration for the purpose of S. 5(3) of the Act? 2. Whether the assets possessed by the appellant were disproportionate to his known sources of income? 3. Whether the appellant had satisfactorily accounted for the disproportionately high assets?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Yes, pecuniary resources and property acquired before the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 came into force can be taken into consideration for the purpose of S. 5(3) of the Act. The language of S. 5(3) is clear and unambiguous and does not warrant any such restriction. To read into the section the additional word "if acquired after the date of this Act" after the word "property" would be to add words to the statute which are not there. 2. Yes, the assets possessed by the appellant were disproportionate to his known sources of income. The appellant's total receipts from his known sources of income were about Rs. 1,03,000/-. However, he possessed assets worth Rs. 1,20,000/-. Even taking a liberal view of the excess of the assets over the receipts from the known sources of income, it is clear that the assets were disproportionate to the income. 3. No, the appellant had not satisfactorily accounted for the disproportionately high assets. The appellant's story of certain receipts from one Kabul Singh, his son Teja Singh, and from his father, Chanda Singh was rejected by the Special Judge as untrustworthy.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.

Judgment

DAS GUPTA, J. : Sajjan Singh, son of Chanda Singh, joined the service of the Punjab Government in January 1922 as an Overseer in the Irrigation Department. He continued as Overseer till July 1944 when he became a Sub-Divisional Officer in the Department. From that date till May 1947 he worked as Sub-Divisional Officer in that part of Punjab which has now gone to West Pakistan. From November 30, 1947 to September 26, 1952 he was employed as Sub-Divisional Officer of Drauli Sub-Division of the Nangal Circle, except for a short break from November 8, 1950 to April 3, 1951, when he was on leave. The work of excavation for the Nangal Project within the Drauli Sub-Division was carried out by several contractors, including Ramdas Chhankanda Ram and M/s. Ramdas Jagdish Ram. On December 7, 1952, the General Manager, Bhakra Dam, made a complaint in writing to the Superintendent of Police, Ho shiarpur, alleging that Sajjan Singh and some other officials subordinate to him had by illegal and corrupt means and by abusing their position as public servants, dishonestly and fraudulently, obtained illegal gratification from the contractors Ramdas Chhankanda Ram and M/s. Ram Das Jagdish Ram by withholding their payments and putting various obstacles in the smooth execution of the work entrusted to them. A case under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered on the basis of this complaint, which was treated as a first information report and after sanction of the Government of Punjab had been obtained for the prosecution of Sajjan Singh under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and S. 161/165 of the Indian Penal Code, Sajjan Singh was tried by the Special Judge, Ambala, on a charge under S. 5(2) of the Act.

2. The learned Special Judge convicted him under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Punjab High Court, on appeal. The High Court however rejected the State s application for enhancement of the sentence. The present appeal is by Sajjan Singh against his conviction and sentence under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by special leave of this Court.

3. The prosecution case is that after work had been done by the firm Ramdas Chhankandas for several months, and some running payments had been received without difficulty, the appellant demanded from Ram Das, one of the partners of the firm, his commission on the cheques issued to the partnership firm. It is said that Ram Das at first refused. But, ultimately when the appellant started unnecessary criticism of the work done by them and even withholding some running payments the partners of the firm decided to pay commission to him as demanded. The first payment, it is said, was made on March 21, 1949 and further payments were thereafter made from time to time. The case is that the partnership paid altogether a sum of Rs. 10,500/- in cash as commission to the appellant, besides paying Rs. 2,000/- to him for payment to the Executive Engineer and Rs. 241/12/- made up of small sums paid on different occasions on behalf of the accused. All these payments made to the appellant were fully entered in the regular Rokar and Khata Bhais of the partnership under a fictions name of Jhalu Singh, Jamadar, though a few of the later payments were entered in these books in Sajjan Singh s own name. In order to allay suspicion some fictitious credit entries were also made in the books. The prosecution also alleged payment to the appellant of Rs. 1,800/- by another firm M/s. Ram Das Jagdish Ram. But as that has not been found to be proved it is unnecessary to mention details of the allegations in that connection.

4. To prove its case against the appellant the prosecution relied on the testimony of three partners of the firm who claimed to have

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1963 Supreme(SC) 209

Pecuniary resources and property acquired before the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 came into force can be taken into consideration for the purpose of S. 5(3) of the Act.

Cases Referred (3)