Judgment

SIKRI, J.:- This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissing the appeal of the appellant against the conviction recorded by the Special Judge for Greater Bombay. The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge under Section 5 (2), read with Section 5 (1) (a) and (d) and Section 5 (3), of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (2 of 1947) - hereinafter referred to as the Act - and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,25,000, in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year The Special Judge further directed that the amount of fine be recovered from the properties seized.

2. The following charge was framed against the appellant:

"That you, while functioning as (a) income-tax Officer, from about 1st April, 1947 to November 1954 at Jalgaon, Dhulia, Godhra and Mahansa (b) as Inspector of Income-tax from November, 1954 to January 1958 at Surat and Broach, (c) as Income-tax Officer from January 1958 to the end of November 1961 at Bhavnagar, Dhulia, Amraoti and Ratnagiri, habitually accepted or obtained and habitually agreed to accept or attempted to obtain gratification other than legal remuneration and obtained for yourself pecuniary advantage by corrupt and illegal means or by otherwise abusing your position as a public servant, with the result that, during the said period, you came in possession of assets of the value of about Rs. 2,01,080/- which were disproportionate to your known sources of income for which you could not satisfactorily account and you thereby committed the offence of criminal misconduct punishable under sub-section (2) read with sub-ss. (1) (a), (d) and (3) of Section 5 of Act (2 of 1947), the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and within the cognizance of this Court".

3. The case of the prosecution before the Special Judge was that the appellant was habitually corrupt, and wherever he was posted he used to develop personal contacts with the assessees, whose cases were pending before him and in his talk with them he tried to impress upon them that they were likely to be heavily taxed; he used to create a favourable psychological background and taking advantage of the same tried to screw out money from them; if the assessee did not accept his proposal or proved to be smarter, he used to harass him by various methods. The prosecution sought to establish the charge against him under Section 5 (1) (a) of the Act by leading evidence of five instances:

(i) He obtained from the witness Gopaldas an amount of Rs. 3,000/as a loan and subsequently converted it as his personal gratification for finalising income-tax cases of his firm.

(ii) He demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000/- from the witness Gopaldas to show him favour in the Wealth Tax Proceedings

(iii) He attempted to obtain bribe from P. W. 7 - Motilal Bansgopal, whose income-tax proceedings were pending before him.

(iv) He attempted to obtain bribe from the assessee P. W. 9, Somchand Khimji, whose income-tax proceedings were pending before him

(v) He also made a demand of bribe of Rs. 400/- to Rs. 500/- from P. W. 93 Gulabdas Kisondass Bhatia of Dharangaon.

4. Before the Special Judge the prosecution also relied on the presumption arising under Section 5 (3) of the Act as the accused was found to be in possession of assets worth about Rs. 2,01,080/which were disproportionate to his known sources of income.

5. The learned Special Judge, in a very detailed and lengthy judgment, held that it was not proved that the appellant had obtained Rs. 3,000/- from Gopaldas representing that he wanted the amount as a hand-loan for taking delivery of the car. He further held that it was not proved that the appellant demanded bribe of Rs 10,000/- from him as a motive for doing him favour in the disposal of his wealth tax cases. Regarding P. W. 7, Motilal Bansgopal, the Special Judge held that the accused had entertaine