Khosla, J.

1. In the course of arguments addressed to me in Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 1956 the vires of Section 5 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was challenged on the ground that it offended against the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution, Since I considered the point to be of considerable Importance I referred the matter to a larger Bench. My brother Falshaw J., and I have now heard Mr. Chawla, counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Gandhi, counsel for the State. Arguments at some length were addressed to us and a number of decisions of the Supreme Court in India were cited before us. After giving the matter my most anxious consideration I have come to the conclusion that the impugned law is intra vires and does not offend against the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution.

2. The appellant in this case was tried upon a charge punishable under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The nature of the charge was that he being a public servant had dishonestly misappropriated monies which were entrusted to him as public servant. The nature of the offence is defined in Section 5 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the penalty is p