Judgment

BHAGWATI, J.:- The principal question which arises for determination in this appeal is whether in the facts of the present case the prosecution was justified in invoking the applicability of the presumption contained in sub-section (3) of S. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. That sub-section provides that in any trial of an offence punishable under sub-section (2) of S. 5, namely, the offence of criminal misconduct committed by a public servant in the discharge of his duty, the fact that the accused is in possession for which he cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income may by proved and on such proof, it is presumed unless contrary is proved that the accused is guilty of criminal misconduct in discharge of his official duty and his conviction therefore shall not be invalid by reason only that it is based solely on such presumption. The sub-section consists of two parts. The first part sets out the facts which if proved give rise to a rebuttable presumption. It requires, in order to the raising of this presumption, that the accused must be shown to be in possession of pecuniary resources or p