1. (After holding that the evidence in the case established that the accused was in possession of pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known income and the accused had failed to account for it and was, therefore, guilty of the offence under Section 5(2) and after stating that it was not necessary, in the circumstances to go through the evidence regarding specific instances of bribery alleged against the accused the Judgment proceeded:)

2. Mr. Purshottam has contended that the sanction granted by the Inspector-General of Police for the prosecution of the appellant was defective. The sanction recited thirteen specific instances in which the appellant was alleged to have accepted bribes or was alleged to have attempted to obtain bribes, and then the material part of the sanction stated:

"Whereas, it appears to the Inspector General of Police that the said Shri S.N. Ranebennur has thereby committed an offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(l)(a), Prevention of Corruption Act. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6(l)(c), Prevention of Corruption Act, II of 1947. I Shri N.M. Kamte, B.A.I.P. Inspector-General of Police, State of Bombay, hereby accord sanction to the prosecution of the said Sub-Inspector for the said offence."

3. Now Mr. Purshottams contention that this sanction was defective has been made in this way. It is argued that the report submitted by Sub-Inspector Kamat to the Additional Assistant to the Inspector General of Police alleged certain facts against the appellant which would constitute an offence under Section 5(l)(a) of the Act. The report also alleged certain other facts from which, says Mr. Purshottam, an inference of guilt under Section 5(3) of the Act might arise. All these facts were brought to the notice of the Inspector General of Police.

Yet, the Inspector General of Police granted sanction for the prosecution of the appellant under Section 5(2) read with Section 5 (1) (a) only of the Act. Mr. Purshottams submission is that, although the charge framed against the appellant, besides alleging specific instances of bribery, which would constitute an offence under Section 5(l)(a), alleged further that the appellant was possessed of pecuniary resources which were disproportionate to his known sources of income, which was an allegation under Section 5(3), the sanction granted was in respect of an offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (a) only.

According to Mr. Purshottam, the sanction fell short of setting out an offence under Section 5(3) for which also the appellant was sought to be prosecuted. In other words, says Mr. Purshottam, the sanction being a sanction for the prosecution for an offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(l)(a), only, it is defective so far as the prosecution of the appellant upon a charge as framed against him is concerned, as it does not set out the allegation regarding the pecuniary resources of the appellant being disproportionate to his known sources Of income.

4. This contention of Mr. Purshottam postulates as its basis that Section 5(3) creates an independent offence," i.e. an offence independent of an offence created under Section 5(1). In our view, however, this basis itself is non-existent and, therefore, the contention of Mr. Purshottam must fail. Section 5(1) creates an offence of criminal misconduct and speaks of various acts by the doing of which a person would commit that offence. Section 5(2) prescribes a penalty for that offence.

Section 5(3) does not create any offence. It does not speak of any specific, individual act of a person or his attempt at any specific act, but refers to a state of his pecuniary position as contrasted with his known earnings, which might be a cumulative result of acts done by him, which would fall under Section 5(1). In enacting Sub-section (3) of Section 5, the Legislature did not intend to create an offence, separate from the one created under Sub-section (1) but intended to lay do