Judgment

SHINGHAL, J. - Respondent Kaliar Koil Subramaniam Ramaswamy, who will hereinafter be referred to as the accused, was working as Inspector in the Regional Transport Office, Kolahapur. His house was searched by Inspector R. K. Shukla (P. W. 164) under a search warrant issued by a Magistrate of the First Class under Section 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on May 17, 1964, and a lot of property was recovered from his possession. That led to an investigation into the transactions which were found to have been made by him and the members of his family. While the matter was still under investigation, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was amended by Amending Act No. 40 of 1964, and the following was inserted as Clause (e) in sub-section (1) of Sec. 5 :-

"(e) if he or any person on his behalf is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession, for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income."

Sub-section (3) of that section was substituted by a new sub-section which does not, however, directly bear on the case before us.

2. There was a prolonged investigation in the case against the accused and a charge sheet was presented in the court of the Special Judge, Kolhapur, on April 3, 1969, alleging that the accused was guilty of offences under Cls (a), (b), (d) & (e) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 5 of the Act read with sub-section (2) of that section, and Sections 161 and 165 of the Penal Code. The Special Judge framed a charge against the accused for the commission of those offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty.

3. The Special Judge convicted the accused under Section 5(2) of the Act as he held that he had committed offences under Cls (a), (b), (d) and (e) of sub-section (1) of S. 5 of the Act and Ss. 161 and 165 of the Penal Code, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. The accused filed an appeal against his conviction and the High Court found that there was "not even on witness who supported the prosecution case under Sec. 5(1) (a), (b) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947." It also held that as there was nothing on the record to show that the accused was in possession or came into possession of any pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income after the enactment of Cl. (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act by the Amending Act of 1964, his prosecution under that clause was "illegal inasmuch as the said sub-section of Section 5 (1) could not be so interpreted as to apply to the possession of the property and recources by the appellant before it was enacted." The High Court examined the transactions in jaggery and sewing machines also, and held further that it could "not see how the said acts of the appellant constitute offences either under Secs. 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code or under Section 5 (1) (a), (b) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947." It therefore proceeded to examine the question whether the conviction of the accused for the offence under Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with sub-section (2) of that section could be upheld in the face of the provisions of Article 20 of the Constitution. While doing so, it made a reference to its judgment in Ramanand Pundlik Kamat v. State, Criminal Appeal No. 1436 of 1968 decided on 26/27th August, 1971 (SC) where, in almost similar circumstances, it had taken the view that the prosecution was not maintainable under that article. In that view of the matter, the High Court allowed the appeal by its judgment dated October 8, 1971, and acquitted the accused altogether without examining the voluminous evidence which had been led by the prosecution to prove that he was in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.

4. The Stat