- (1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. By the impugned judgment the High Court set aside the judgment of the trial Court, and directed acquittal of the respondent.
(2.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The respondent a government servant was Inspector of Police at the time when a raid was conducted in his house on 28.12.1971. He was convicted for offence punishable under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act ) and was sentenced to under minimum sentence of one year and was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The only point which was examined by the High Court was whether the respondent could be convicted for acquisition of wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income prior to 1964 i.e. from the date of inception of service on 29.5.1944 till the date of raid under Section 5(1)(e) which came into force only on 18.12.1964. The High Court was of the view that any acquisition of wealth said to be disproportionate to his known sources of income prior to 1964 could not be taken into account since prior to 1964 the same was not an offence. Reliance was placed by two judgments for the purpose one of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Kaliar Koli Subramaniaum Ramaswamy , and the other of the Bombay High Court in Ramanand Pundalik Kamat v. State of Maharashtra ILR 1973 Bom 1066.
(3.) The primary stand of learned counel for the appellant is that the scope and ambit of Section 5(1)(e) of the Act has been lost sight of.;