1963 (8) TMI 53 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the pecuniary resources and property in possession of the appellant and his family.
2. Applicability of Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
3. Validity and relevance of the account books as evidence.
4. Independent corroboration of the testimony of partners.
5. Sentence imposed on the appellant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Pecuniary Resources and Property in Possession of the Appellant and His Family:
The prosecution alleged that the appellant and his family possessed pecuniary resources and property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Specifically, the appellant's son, Bhupinder Singh, held significant bank deposits and property, which the prosecution argued were on behalf of the appellant. The Special Judge and one of the High Court judges concluded that these assets were indeed held on behalf of the appellant, rejecting the defense's explanations. The appellant's total assets were found to be Rs. 1,20,000, while his known income was around Rs. 1,03,000, from which living expenses of at least Rs. 36,000 had to be deducted, making the assets highly disproportionate.

2. Applicability of Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947:
Section 5(3) was central to the case, providing that possession of disproportionate assets by a public servant raises a presumption of criminal misconduct unless satisfactorily accounted for. The appellant argued that only assets acquired after the Act's commencement should be considered, but the Court held that all assets in possession, regardless of acquisition date, could be considered. The Court emphasized that this section merely prescribes a rule of evidence and does not create a new offense.

3. Validity and Relevance of the Account Books as Evidence:
The prosecution relied on account books maintained by the firm M/s. Ramdas Chhankanda Ram, which allegedly recorded payments made to the appellant. The Special Judge accepted these books as relevant under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, despite the defense's contention that they were not regularly kept in the course of business. The Court found that the books, interspersed with admitted and proved items, provided necessary independent corroboration.

4. Independent Corroboration of the Testimony of Partners:
The Court agreed that the testimony of the partners, who were in the position of accomplices, required independent corroboration. The Special Judge and the High Court found such corroboration in the account books, which contained interspersed admitted and proved items of payment.

5. Sentence Imposed on the Appellant:
The appellant was sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. Under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the minimum sentence is one year, unless special reasons are recorded for a lesser sentence. The Court found no special reasons to reduce the sentence and thus upheld it.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant based on the presumption under Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, concluding that the assets in possession were disproportionate to the known sources of income and were not satisfactorily accounted for. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 was maintained.