9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the presumption under Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 2. Determination of the appellant's total income from 29th November 1949 to 1st January 1962. 3. Consideration of disputed income items. 4. Calculation of the appellant's total expenditure during the relevant period. 5. Evaluation of the appellant's assets as of 1st January 1962. 6. Determination of whether the appellant's assets were disproportionate to his known sources of income. 7. Validity of the conviction based on the presumption under Sub-section (3) of Section 5. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of the Presumption under Sub-section (3) of Section 5: The principal question was whether the prosecution was justified in invoking the presumption under Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. This sub-section allows for a rebuttable presumption of guilt if the accused is found in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to known sources of income and cannot satisfactorily account for it. Both the Special Judge and the High Court convicted the appellant using this presumption, despite specific charges under Clauses (a) to (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 not being established. 2. Determination of the Appellant's Total Income: The prosecution conceded that the appellant's aggregate income during the relevant period was Rs. 1,12,515.43. The appellant sought to add additional items to this list, including profit from the sale of a gun, money received from his father for car purchases, and earnings from tuition and scholarships. The court accepted some of these claims, adding Rs. 300 for the gun sale, Rs. 5,300 and Rs. 7,000 from his father, and portions of the tuition and scholarship amounts, resulting in a total income of Rs. 1,27,715.43. 3. Consideration of Disputed Income Items: The court examined disputed income items in detail: - Profit on Sale of Gun: Accepted, adding Rs. 300. - Money from Father for Car Purchase: Accepted, adding Rs. 5,300 and Rs. 7,000. - Tuition and Scholarships: Partially accepted, adding Rs. 2,600. 4. Calculation of the Appellant's Total Expenditure: Certain expenditure items were not disputed, totaling Rs. 23,459.84. Disputed items included insurance premiums, house rent, electricity charges, telephone charges, legal expenses, losses on car sales, miscellaneous payments through cheques, holiday trips, family illness, household expenses, and clothing. After detailed analysis, the court determined the total expenditure to be Rs. 83,331.84. 5. Evaluation of the Appellant's Assets: The appellant's admitted assets totaled Rs. 38,572.46. Disputed assets included amounts in joint accounts, savings accounts, fixed deposits, and investments. The court found that: - Rs. 1,000 in Joint Account: Belonged to Shanti Devi. - Rs. 2,000 in GPO Savings Account: Belonged to the appellant. - Rs. 9,000 Cash with Shanti Devi: Not included as an asset. - Land at Varanasi: Belonged to Shanti Devi. - Fixed Deposit of Rs. 11,180: Belonged to Shanti Devi. - Fixed Deposit of Rs. 2,200: Belonged to Sheela Devi. - Deposit of Rs. 10,000 with Sharda & Co.: Belonged to Sheela Devi. - Bank Balance of Rs. 6,688: Belonged to Sheela Devi. - Rs. 14,000 with Shridhar Gopal & Co.: Belonged to the appellant. - Radio and Furniture: Partially belonged to the appellant. The total assets were determined to be Rs. 55,732.25. 6. Disproportionate Assets: The court compared the appellant's total assets of Rs. 55,732.25 against his surplus income of Rs. 44,383.59. The excess was less than ten percent of the total income, leading the court to conclude that the assets were not disproportionate to the known sources of income. 7. Validity of the Conviction: The court found that the presumption under Sub-section (3) of Section 5 was not justified given the small excess of assets over income. Therefore, the conviction based on this presumption was invalid. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charges. The bail bonds were discharged.
|
