IMPORTANT POINTS
1. In order to establish that a public servant is in possession of pecuniary resources and property, disproportionate to his known source of income i.e. to establish Criminal misconduct under section 5 (1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, it is not imperative that the period of reckoning be spread out for the entire stretch of anterior service of the public servant.
2. A somewhat liberal view requires to be taken of what proportion of assets in excess of the known source if income constitutes disproportion for purposes of Section 5 (1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

Judgment

VENKATACHALIAH, J. :- This appeal, by special leave by the State of Maharashtra, arises out of and is directed against the judgment, dated, April 29-30, 1976 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 1044 of 1973 on its file setting aside respondents conviction and sentence dated 21-7-73, under S. 5(1)(e) read with S. 5(2). Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947 (Act for short) in Special Case No. 24/70 on the file of the Special Judge, Greater Bombay.

The Special Judge held respondent guilty of the charge of criminal misconduct in that respondent was in possession of property and pecuniary resources, disproportionate to his known sources of income for which he could not satisfactorily account; and sentenced respondent to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000.

The High Court allowing respondents appeal before it acquitted him of the charge. The State has come up in appeal.

2. At the relevant time, respondent, Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla, was an appraiser in the customs department at Bombay. He and several other customs officers were suspected of their complicity in certain offences, concerning export of stainless steel ware to Hongkong. On 9-12-1968, Police Inspector (P. W. 34), armed with a warrant in this behalf searched the residential-premises of the respondent in the course of the investigation of that case. Though nothing incriminatory for purpose of that investigation was discovered, however, the search revealed respondents possession of furniture, refrigerator, tape-recorder and cash of Rs. 7593 which were susceptible of the suspicion of the commission of an offence under S. 5(1)(e) read with S. 5(2) of the Act. P. W. 34, accordingly, obtained the requisite authorisation to investigate into this offence and after investigation sought and obtained on 26-10-1970 sanction to prosecute respondent. On 2-11-1970, the charge-sheet was placed against the respondent for an offence under S. 5(1)(e) read with S. 5(2) of the Act.

3. The substance of the charge was that respondent, as a public servant, between the period of 1-4-1958 and 31-12-1968 was in possession of pecuniary resources and property of the value of Rs. 2,62,122.15; that his known sources of income during the said period was Rs. 85,114.12; that, therefore, the property possessed by the respondent was disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of Rs. 1,71,647/- for which respondent could not satisfactorily account and that thereby respondent was guilty of criminal misconduct within the meaning of and punishable under S. 5(2) of the Act. Respondent having pleaded not guilty, the matter went for trial.

4. In support of the charge, the prosecution examined 34 witnesses. A number of documents pertaining to the respondents investments in Banks; in company deposits; and on shares both in his own name and jointly with his wife, as also documents pertaining to the salary and emoluments of the respondent between 1-4-1958 and 31-12-1968 were brought on record and marked in evidence.

In the course of the trial, for the most part, respondent was not defended by a counsel. Many of the prosecution witnesses were not cross-examined. It was only at a late stage of the proceedings that an advocate appeared for him. From what is disclosed by the trend of the answers, in the course of the examination under S. 342 Cr. P.C., the possession of the assets in the form of investments in fixed deposits with Banks and with companies and on shares in the joint name of the respondent and his wife was not disputed. The defence was that respondent was in possession of substantial assets even anterior to 1-4-1958 and that respondent had also derived substantial assets from his wifes side. His, wife was stated to be the only daughter of a practising doctor. Respondent also claimed that he and his daughter were in receipt of gifts from his mother.

5. The trial Court went through the somewhat complex exercise of computing a