9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, specifically Clause (e) u/s 5(1), and the application of Article 20(1) of the Constitution.
Summary: 1. The accused, a public servant, was investigated for possession of property disproportionate to known income. He was convicted under Section 5(2) of the Act but acquitted by the High Court due to lack of evidence post the amendment in 1964. The State appealed against the acquittal under Section 5(1)(e) of the Act, which was the only issue before the Supreme Court. 2. The Supreme Court analyzed the legislative intent behind the 1964 amendment, which introduced Clause (e) to Section 5(1) of the Act. The Court clarified that possession of disproportionate assets before the amendment could not be considered an offense under Clause (e) u/s 5(1). This interpretation was crucial in light of Article 20(1) of the Constitution, protecting individuals from retrospective application of laws. 3. The Court emphasized that the new offense under Clause (e) did not exist at the time of the accused's possession of assets, thus entitling him to the protection of Article 20(1). Despite the presumption under Section 5(3) being available for other clauses, the accused's acquittal for those offenses rendered the appeal under Clause (e) invalid. 4. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the accused was rightfully protected by Article 20(1) of the Constitution. The appeal against his acquittal under Section 5(1)(e) was dismissed.
|
