Back
Manipur High Court
R. S. BINDRA, J.
Manjunatta George Varaghes
Versus
Government of Manipur
Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1969
Decided On : 26-09-1969
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1947 - SECTION 5(2) - POSSESSION OF DISPROPORTIONATE ASSETS - BURDEN OF PROOF - CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY - SECTION 517(1) CR.P.C. - APPLICABILITY TO TRIAL UNDER SECTION 5(2) OF THE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a public servant, was found in possession of Rs. 11,300/- at the airport while he was about to board a plane. He was charged with criminal misconduct under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The appellant claimed that he had saved Rs. 6,300/- from his salary, borrowed Rs. 1,500/- from a friend, and received Rs. 3,500/- from three other persons to be delivered to their parents in Kerala.
Finding of the Court:
The Special Judge disbelieved the appellant's defense and found that he had obtained Rs. 5,000/- by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant. The Special Judge also found that the balance sum of Rs. 6,300/- seized from the appellant's possession did not represent his honest earnings and that a substantial portion of it fell in the category of ill-gotten gains.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had satisfactorily accounted for the possession of Rs. 11,300/- found in his possession. 2. Whether the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment imposed on the appellant was excessive. 3. Whether the confiscation of Rs. 11,300/- was legal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the appellant had failed to satisfactorily account for the possession of Rs. 5,000/- found in his possession. The Court relied on Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which provides that in a trial under Section 5(2), the fact that the accused person is in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income may be proved, and on such proof the Court shall presume that the accused person is guilty of criminal misconduct in the discharge of his official duty unless the contrary is proved. The Court found that the appellant had failed to prove that the sum of Rs. 11,300/- seized from him had been acquired by him by honest means. 2. The Court held that the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment imposed on the appellant was excessive, considering that he had already been dismissed from service as a result of a departmental enquiry. The Court reduced the sentence to one year rigorous imprisonment. 3. The Court held that the confiscation of Rs. 11,300/- was legal under Section 517(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers the Court to order the confiscation of property or documents produced before it or in its custody regarding which any offence appears to have been committed. The Court found that the sum seized from the appellant had been produced before the Court, that it was in the Court's custody, and that the offence of criminal misconduct respecting that money had been committed.
Final Decision: The Court partly allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence from two years to one year rigorous imprisonment and confiscating Rs. 10,000/- out of the sum of Rs. 11,300/- seized from the appellant.
By his judgment dated 31-7-1969, Shri P. N. Roy, Special Judge (II), Manipur, convicted the appellant, Manjunatta George Varaghes under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, hereafter called the Act, and sentenced him to two years rigorous imprisonment. The sum of Rs. 11,300/-seized from the convict by the Police was directed to be confiscated to the State. Having felt aggrieved, the convict has come up in appeal.
2. The facts of the prosecution case, shortly put, are that on getting some firm intelligence, Shri A. Nilamani Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, rushed to the Tulihal airport and contacted Manjunatta George Varaghes who was one of the passengers to board the plane that was expected to fly shortly afterwards. The Sub-Inspector searched the baggage of Manjunatta George Varaghes and found currency notes of rupees one hundred each of the total value of Rs. 11,300/- inside a pillow forming part of that baggage. The money was seized and the accused taken into custody. After necessary investigations, the accused was hauled up under Section 5(2) of the Act.
3. The accused entered the plea of not guilty. He admitted in the statement made under Section 342 Cr. P. C. that the sum of Rs. 11,300/- had been recovered from his possession by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nilamani Singh on 10-4-1963 from the airport just before he was to board the plane. His defence was that he had made a saving of Rs. 6,300/- from out of his salary during the period when he was employed in Manipur, that he was proceeding to his native State Kerala when he was arrested on 10-4-1963, that he required Rs. 10,000/- in connection with his own marriage and that of his sister, that he had borrowed Rs. 1,500/-from R. M. Thomas, Extension Officer, Jiribam, that three persons by the names of Issac Mathew, Section Officer in P.W.D., Manipur, K. C. Mathew, Surveyor in the P.W.D., Manipur and C. K. Jacob had respectively given him Rs. 2,000/-, Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 500/- to be delivered to their parents in the State of Kerala, and that in this manner he had a total sum of Rs. 11,300/- with him on the date of his arrest. He examined five witnesses to support his defence version.
4. The learned Special Judge disbelieved the accused on the points that he had borrowed Rs. 1,500/- from P. M. Thomas, or that Issac Mathew, K. C. Mathew, and C. K. Jacob had given him any money for being delivered to their parents in Kerala, or that he had saved Rs. 6,300/-out of his earnings during the period of his employment in Manipur from 20th November 1958 to 31st March 1963. The Special Judge found that the accused was possessed on 10-4-1963 of money which was disproportionate to his known sources of income and that as such he was guilty of criminal misconduct as defined in clause (d) of Section 5(1) of the Act. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced the accused in the manner stated above.
5. Shri Manisana Singh, appearing for the appellant, urged two points during the course of arguments. Firstly, he canvassed that the Special Judge had gone wrong in rejecting the defence version. According to Manisana Singh, the statement of the accused reinforced by the defence evidence completely smashes the charge formulated against him. The second point raised by Shri Manisana Singh, which he pressed as alternative to the first submission, was that the sentence imposed upon the appellant is excessive and that the confiscation of Rs. 11,300/- is illegal.
6. Before proceeding to examine the merits of the first submission made by Shri Manisana Singh, I would like to reproduce the definition of the expression "criminal misconduct" as given in Section 5(1) of the Act. According to clause (d) of that provision a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct in the discharge of his duty if he, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advant
AI
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
