1959 (5) TMI 38 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ingredients of Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. Presumption of guilt under Section 5(3) when specific instances of corruption are not proven.
3. Evaluation of the appellant's explanation for disproportionate assets.
4. Burden of proof on the accused under Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
5. Prosecution's evidence regarding the appellant's known sources of income.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Ingredients of Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act:
The appellant contended that the ingredients of Section 5(3) of the Act were not established. It was argued that the charge of criminal misconduct was confined to the facts disclosed in his bank accounts, which showed a net credit of over Rs. 91,000. The appellant attempted to explain this by stating that his savings came from his salary, allowances, gratuity, provident fund, and other sources. However, the High Court found that these explanations were not substantiated with evidence, and mere allegations were insufficient.

2. Presumption of guilt under Section 5(3) when specific instances of corruption are not proven:
The appellant argued that since the specific instances of corruption were not proven, the presumption of guilt under Section 5(3) should not apply. The High Court, however, relied on the presumption under Section 5(3) of the Act, which allows the court to presume guilt if the accused is found in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to their known sources of income. The High Court found that the appellant had not satisfactorily accounted for the receipt of Rs. 73,000 in cash and Rs. 18,000 by cheques, which were disproportionate to his known sources of income.

3. Evaluation of the appellant's explanation for disproportionate assets:
The appellant provided several explanations for his large bank deposits, including savings from his salary, allowances, gratuity, provident fund, and loans from friends. The High Court found these explanations unconvincing, noting that they were not substantiated by evidence. The court emphasized that the appellant needed to "satisfactorily account" for the disproportionate assets, and mere plausible explanations were insufficient.

4. Burden of proof on the accused under Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act:
The appellant contended that the burden of proof on the accused under Section 5(3) was not as heavy as that on the prosecution. The High Court, however, held that the section imposes a burden on the accused to prove the contrary once the prosecution has established a prima facie case of disproportionate assets. The court noted that the presumption of guilt continues unless the accused provides cogent evidence to rebut it.

5. Prosecution's evidence regarding the appellant's known sources of income:
The appellant argued that the prosecution did not lead evidence to show his known sources of income. The High Court held that the prosecution had provided the best evidence available, namely the appellant's bank accounts, which showed deposits disproportionate to his known income. The court stated that it was the appellant's responsibility to prove any additional sources of income not accounted for by the prosecution.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment for the appellant under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court found that the appellant had not satisfactorily accounted for the disproportionate assets, and the presumption of guilt under Section 5(3) applied. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to surrender to his bail bond.