Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
H.K.Chaudhuri and Tarkeshwar Nath JJ.
Ramsagar Pandit
Versus
State Of Bihar
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 20, 1960
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - Sec. 5(1), 5(2), 5(3) - Criminal Misconduct - Sanction for Prosecution - Interpretation - Presumption of Guilt - Rebuttal of Presumption.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Mechanical Assistant Engineer, was convicted under Sec. 5(1) read with Sec. 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for possessing pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known sources of income and failing to account for it satisfactorily. The prosecution alleged that he showed undue favours to certain firms, received illegal gratification, and made illegal gains in the discharge of his official duties. The appellant denied the allegations and claimed that the money was derived from legitimate sources, including money-lending transactions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was in possession of a minimum amount of Rs. 52298/6/3, which was disproportionate to his known sources of income. The court also found that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the various bank accounts in his name and those of his family members. The court further found that the appellant's conduct and the history of the banking accounts demolished the theory that the money was derived from any other known source.
Issues: 1. Whether the sanction for prosecution was valid and sufficient to cover the charge of criminal misconduct under Sec. 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Whether the presumption of guilt under Sec. 5(3) of the Act was properly raised and whether the appellant rebutted the presumption.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the sanction for prosecution was valid and sufficient to cover the charge of criminal misconduct under Sec. 5(1) of the Act. The court found that the letter from the Superintendent of Police to the Government seeking sanction for prosecution clearly alleged that the appellant showed undue favours, received money by corrupt or illegal means, and received illegal gratification. The court held that these allegations constituted criminal misconduct under Sec. 5(1) of the Act and that the sanctioning authority had considered these facts before granting the sanction. 2. The court held that the presumption of guilt under Sec. 5(3) of the Act was properly raised. The court found that the conditions laid down in the earlier part of Sec. 5(3) were fulfilled by evidence that the appellant was in possession of a huge amount disproportionate to his known sources of income. The court held that the appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption by cogent evidence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.
Takeshwar Nath, J.
1. The appellant has been convicted under Sec. 5, Clause 1 read with Clause 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947) and sentenced to a rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to six months rigorous imprisonment, by the Special Judge of Bhagalpur. The learned Judge found, after giving a liberal allowance for the known sources of income of the appellant, that he was in possession of a minimum amount of Rs. 52298/6/3 and that he failed to account satisfactorily for it,
2. The facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant are these : The appellant joined Government service in 1942 as a teacher in the Reformatory School at Hazaribagh on a pay of Rs. 125/- per month. In July, 1945 he became a lecturer in mechanics in the Agricultural College at Sabaur. He served in that capacity till 30-11-1949 and from 1-12-1949 he became Mechanical Assistant Engineer at Sabaur.
He continued to be so till 31-8-1952 after which he reverted to the post of lecturer in mechanics. The appellant belonged to the interior of district Champaran and his means and resources were limited. His father was old and had no employment, whereas his younger brother was serving as a post master of a branch post office on a monthly salary of Rs. 25/- per month. The appellant had two wives, the first one lived with her father-in-law whereas the second one lived with the appellant.
The appellant had one daughter from the first wife and one son aged about 18 years, on(c) daughter aged about 15 years- and another issue of young age from his second wife. His wives had no assets of their own and they had to depend on the appellant for their maintenance. It appears that fortune favoured the appellant and he turned a new leaf in course of about 2 years, 1951-52. The enquiry revealed the following: (a) On 2-8-1951 the appellant opened a Savings Bank Account No. 77946 in his name in the Head Post Office at Bhagalpur with a deposit of Rs. 10/-only, but by 3-6-1952 the credit balance was to the tune of Rs. 5901/4/-.
(b) In August, 1951 he opened another Savings Bank Account No. 314 in his name in the Imperial Bank at Bhagalpur with a deposit of Rs. 1400/-, but by December, 1952 the balance to his credit was Rs. 6450/10/-.
(c) In March, 1951 he opened a current account No. 2/409 and 505 in the Imperial Bank at Bhagalpur with an initial deposit of Rs. 505/-only, but by June, 1953 the balance to his credit was Rs. 4997/16/-,
(d) The appellant had before August, 1945 a Savings Bank Account No. 46599 at Hazaribagh in the name of his second wife, but he got this account transferred to Bhagalpur with a balance of Rs. 840.00 and odd annas when he was posted at Sabaur. By June, 1951 the balance in this account was to the tune of Rs. 10279/15/-.
(e) On 28-6-1951 the appellant opened a Savings Bank Account No. 77636 in the Post, Office in the name of his daughter Kusum Kumari with a deposit of Rs. 10,000/-, but by 19-4-1952 the balance was Rs. 15,150/-.
(f) In 1946 he opened a Savings Bank Account No. 64448 in the Post Office at Bhagalpur in the name of his son Kedar Nath Gupta with a deposit of Rs. 251/-, but by 19-4-1952 the credit balance was Rs. 15,142/12/-.
3. The net result was that during the years 1951 and 1952, that is, in course of less than 20 months, he deposited a sum of Rs. 32065/3/- in his three accounts, Rs. 16500.00 in the name of his second wife, Rs. 5000.00 in the name of his daughter Kusum Kumari and Rs. 8200.00 in the name of his son. In 1952 he purchased a motor car for Rs. 12,567/4/3 and he paid the price in three instalment. The first instalment of Rs. 5000/-was paid on 15-3-1952 by a cheque, the second one of Rs. 5067/4/3 in cash on 7-4-1952 and the third one of Rs. 2000.00 by a draft on 8-4-1952. It further appeared that the amount of second instalment was not withdrawn from any Bank and the appellant had thus this additional sum with him for the payment of the price.
4. The prosecution c
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
