The burden of proof on the accused to satisfactorily account for disproportionate assets, as established in State of Maharashtra v. Wasudeo Ramchandra and K. Veeraswami v. Union of India.

( 1 ) APPELLANT N. P. Jharia has been convicted under Section 5 (1) (e) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to a fine of Rs. 75,000/ -.

( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that the appellant was appointed as Sales Tax Officer on 16-9-1975 and he was occupying that post during the check period of 16-9-1975 to 31-12-1983. He was married to Pushpa Jharia (DW1) in the year 1969 and he has three children.

( 3 ) THE prosecution case is that during the period 16-9-1975 to 31-12-1983 the appellant was in possession of pecuniary resources and property worth Rs. 10,19,210/- as disproportionate to his known sources of income. A detailed discussion will be made later in this judgment. After investigation the Special Police Establishment had submitted "final Report" on 1-3-1990 informing the Court that no offence is made out against the appellant. That final report was accepted by the Special Judge on 17-4-1990. But on 1-7-1992 the S. P. E. submitted an application before the Special Judge for permisison for further investigation. The Special Judge permitted reinvestigation. Thereafter, the sanction for prosecution was obtained from the State Government on 1-3-1995 and that is Ex. P. 19. The charge sheet was filed in the Court on 24-7-1995.

( 4 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty. His defence is that he has satisfactorily accounted for all the properties in his name and in the name of his wife.

( 5 ) THE Special Judge after an exhaustive and elaborate consideration of all the documentary and oral evidence on record came to the conclusion that the total income of the appellant and his wife was Rs. 9,32,086. 90 P. and the expenditure was Rs. 18, 81,745. 81 P. and thus the value of the disproportionate assets was Rs. 9,49,658. 00. It has been further held that the submission of the F. R. once by the investigating agency was not a legal bar to make further investigation and file the charge sheet. It has also been found that the sanction for the prosecution is valid and proper.

( 6 ) IN this appeal it has been argued that (a) the calculation of the income and expenditure by the trial Court is erroneous and against the evidence on record, (b) there was in fact no further investigation or reinvestigation and the charge sheet has been submitted on the same evidence on which the investigating agency had formed the opinion that no case is made out and (c) the order sanctioning the prosecution is without appliction of mind as the relevant material was not considered. These are the three points which arise for determination in this appeal.

( 7 ) BEFORE dealing with the points referred above it would be appropriate to look at the relevant law. According to Section 5 (1) (e) of the Act a Public Servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct :"if he or any person on his behalf is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income". Clause (e) was added by the Anti Corruption Laws (Amendment) Act, 1964 and the possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income of a public servant was made a substantive offence. A corresponding provisions has been made in Section 13 (1) (e) of the Act of 1988 with certain charges but that need not be noticed as the offence in the present case is said to have been committed when the Act of 1947 was holding the field.

( 8 ) THE language used in Section 5 (1) (e) of the Act has been interpreted in several decisions of the Supreme Court. It would be enough to refer to two such decisions. In State of Maharashtra v. Wasudeo Ramchandra, AIR 1981 SC 1186 : (1981 Cri L 884) it has been stated that the ingredients of the offence of criminal misconduct under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (e)