Case Note & Summary
The appellant, a former Income-tax Officer, was convicted by the Special Judge for Greater Bombay under Section 5(2) read with Sections 5(1)(a), 5(1)(d) and 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for criminal misconduct by habitually accepting bribes and possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The prosecution alleged that between April 1947 and November 1961, while serving as Income-tax Officer and Inspector of Income-tax at various places, the appellant habitually accepted or obtained gratification other than legal remuneration and thereby came into possession of assets worth about Rs.2,01,080, which he could not satisfactorily account for. The prosecution led evidence of five specific instances of bribe taking or attempts, but the trial court accepted only two instances as proved and drew the presumption under Section 5(3) based on the disproportionate assets. The Special Judge sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,25,000, recoverable from seized properties. The High Court of Bombay dismissed his appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence, while accepting one additional instance of bribery. In appeal to the Supreme Court by special leave, two preliminary points were raised: first, that the trial was bad for want of sanction under Section 6 of the Act because the appellant had been dismissed from service and his appeal to the President was pending; second, that the charge of habitually accepting bribes was defective because it did not specify particular instances. The Supreme Court rejected the sanction argument, holding that the appellant ceased to be a public servant upon dismissal and the pendency of his appeal did not restore that status; sanction is required only when a person is employed, not when he was employed. On the charge, the Court followed Biswabhusan Naik v. State of Orissa and held that for a charge of habitually accepting bribes, it was not necessary to give specific instances. On the merits, the Court upheld the drawing of the presumption under Section 5(3), stating that failure to establish any of the offences under Section 5(1)(a) to (d) was irrelevant for sustaining a conviction based on the presumption. The Court followed Biswabhusan Naik and C.S.D. Swamy v. State and distinguished Surajmal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and R.S. Pandit v. State of Bihar. In view of the fact that the appellant had already undergone about four months of imprisonment and a large fine was imposed, the Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone while maintaining the fine of Rs.1,25,000.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Sanction for Prosecution - Sanction under Section 6 not required after accused ceased to be public servant - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Section 6 - The appellant, an Income-tax Officer, was dismissed from service before the charge-sheet was filed. The court held that he ceased to be a public servant upon dismissal and the pendency of his appeal to the President did not make him a public servant. Sanction is necessary only when the person is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and not when he was employed. Held that the trial was not bad for lack of sanction (Paras 1-4). B) Criminal Law - Charge of Habitual Bribe Taking - Specific Instances Not Required - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Sections 5(1)(a), 5(1)(d) - The charge framed was of habitually accepting or obtaining gratification other than legal remuneration. The court held that since the charge was one of habitually accepting bribes, it was not necessary that specific instances of taking bribe should be given in the charge. Biswabhusan Naik v. State of Orissa was followed. Held that the charge was not defective (Paras 1-4). C) Criminal Law - Presumption of Disproportionate Assets - Conviction Can Be Based on Presumption Alone - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Section 5(3) - The appellant was found in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and failed to satisfactorily account for them. The court held that failure to establish any of the offences under Section 5(1)(a) to (d) was irrelevant for sustaining a conviction based on the presumption under Section 5(3). Biswabhusan Naik v. State of Orissa and C.S.D. Swamy v. State were followed; Surajmal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and R.S. Pandit v. State of Bihar were distinguished. Held that the presumption was rightly drawn (Paras 1-4). D) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Reduction of Sentence While Maintaining Fine - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Section 5(2) - In view of the fact that the appellant had undergone the sentence for about four months and a large fine was imposed on him, the court held that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence was reduced to one already undergone while maintaining the sentence of fine. Held that the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone and the fine of Rs.1,25,000 was maintained (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether trial was bad for lack of sanction under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; whether charge of habitually accepting bribes was defective for not specifying instances; whether presumption under Section 5(3) could be drawn and sustain conviction when specific offences under Section 5(1)(a) to (d) were not established; whether sentence was appropriate
Final Decision
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, upheld the conviction under Section 5(2) read with Sections 5(1)(a), 5(1)(d) and 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone while maintaining the fine of Rs.1,25,000.
Law Points
- Sanction under Section 6 not required after dismissal
- pending appeal does not retain public servant status
- charge of habitually accepting bribes need not specify instances
- presumption under Section 5(3) can sustain conviction despite failure to prove specific offences
- sentence reduction
