JUDGMENT

KAILASAM, J.

( 1 ) THESE appeals are by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 1967 and Order dated 11/01/1974 in Cr. Misc. (S. C. A.) No. 80 of 1973.

( 2 ) THE appellant was charge-sheeted on 26/12/1963 for an offence under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, for entering into a criminal conspiracy with one Sirajuddin and one Rahman to accept from them illegal gratification in the discharge of his official duties. He was also charged with specific offences of accepting Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 4,000 from Sirajuddin and Rehman being offences punishable under Section 161, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 5 (2) and Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He was also charged for the offence punishable under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, that in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, he, during the period from 1955 to 1961 habitually accepted illegal gratifications from the said two co-accused persons. The Special Judge who tried the case acquitted the appellant by the order dated 19/01/1967 holding that neither the charge of conspiracy nor any other charge against the accused was proved. But the Special Judge held hat the assets of the appellant from 1/07/1955 to 30/04/1961 had exceeded his income by Rs. 33,588. 34 and they were disproportionate to the known sources of income of the petitioner. The learned Judge, however, found that as Section 5 (3) of the Act had been repealed on 18/12/1964 and as specific instances of payment of bribe to the petitioner could not be proved the accused could not be held guilty of the charges. Aggrieved by the decision, the State preferred an appeal to the Delhi High Court on 11/04/1967. Pending the appeal before the High Court, Act No. 16 of 1967, came into force on 20/06/1967 introducing Section 5 (1) (e) in the Act. In the High Court the appellant challenged the vires of Act No. 16 of 1967 on the ground that revival of Section 5 (3) of the Act and making it applicable retrospectively was void and unconstitutional as it was in violation of Arts. 14 and 20 (1) of the Constitution. A Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi by its judgment dated 27/11/1973 allowed the appeal upholding the validity of Act No. 16 of 1967 and remanded the case to be tried from the stage at which it was pending on 18/12/1964. Criminal Appeal No. 274 of 1974 is against the order of the High Court remanding the case for fresh trial and Criminal Appeal No. 275 of 1974 is against the order of the High Court refusing to grant a certificate of fitness for appeal to this Court.

( 3 ) MR. R. K. Garg, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that since Section 5 (3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was repealed on 18/12/1964, the courts below cannot take into account the provisions of Section 5 (3) of the Act after the date of its repeal on 18/12/1964. It was further submitted that Act No. 16 of 1967 which gave retrospective operation to Section 5 (3) of the Act is violative ofarts. 14 and 20 (1) of the Constitution. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Act.

( 4 ) SECTION 5 (1) of the Prevention (of Corruption) Act, 1947, Act 2 of 1947, states when a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct. The section before the Amendment Act No. 16 of 1967 consisted of four Cls. (a), (b), (c) and (d ). The appellant was charged for an offence under Section 5 (1) (a) and S. 5 (1) (d) punishable under S. 5 (2) of the Act. Sec. 5 (1) (a), S. 5 (1) (d) and S. 5 (2) read as follows:-"5. (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct in the discharge of his duty- (A) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) as a motive