Mr. V. Ramaswami, J. - (1.) This appeal IB brought by a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution from the judgment of the Patna High Court, dated 18 October 1965, in Criminal Appeal No. 410 of 1963.
(2.) During the relevant period between 16 March 1957 and 27 October 1958, the appellant was working as District Engineer under the Southeastern Railway at Naomundi Banspani which is located in the district of Singhbhum. The charge against the appellant was that during the aforesaid pariod, he committed criminal misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a public servant and obtained pecuniary advantage for himself and others by giving contractors favourable rates in respect of earthwork done by them and by acquisition of assets worth more than Rs. 3 lakhs which were disproportionate to his known sources of income and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 5(2) read with Sections 5(1)(a) to 6(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (2 of 1947). Sections 5(1)(a) to 5(1)(d) of Act 2 of 1947 as it stood at the material time read as follows: (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct In the discharge of his duty, (a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 161 of the Penal Code (46 of 1860), or (b) If he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he know a to be inadequate, from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connextion with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned, or (c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise) converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do, or (d) if he, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. Section 5(2) provides that any public servant who commits criminal misconduct in the discharge of his duty shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years and snail also be liable to fine. Section 6(3) states: (3) In any trial of an offence punishable under Sub-section (2) the fact that the accused person or any other person on his behalf is in possession, for which the accused person cannot satisfactorily account, of peounlary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income may be proved, and on such proof the Court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the accused person is guilty of criminal misconduct in the discharge of his official duty and his conviction therefor shall not be invalid by reason only that it is based solely on such presumption. This sub-section provides an additional mode of proving an offence punishable tinder Sub-section (2) for which any accused person is being tried. This additional mode is by proving the extent of the pecuniary resources or property in the possession of the accused or any other person on his behalf and thereafter showing that this is disproportionate to his known sources of income and that the accused parson cannot satisfactorily account for such possession. If these facts are proved the section makes it obligatory on the Courts to presume that the accused person is guilty of criminal misconduct in the discharge of his official duty, unless the contrary, i.e. , that he was so guilty, is proved by the accused. The section goes on to say that the conviction for an offence of criminal misconduct shall not be invalid by reason only that it is based solely on such presumption.
(3.) The appellant served as Military Engineer from 1913 to 1945. He had his automobile business at Coimbatore from 1917 to 1949. He Joined military service again from 1949 to 1956. He was appointed as a temporary Assistant Engineer under the Southeastern Railway on 13 April 1956 and was first posted at Waltair. He took charge as District Engineer at Naomundi on 16 March 1957 and remained there till 25 October 1958 when he resigned from service. His legal remuneration for his work under the railways came to be about Rs. 21,000. At the time the appellant joined service under the Southeastern Railway he submitted a statement, Ex. 1/7, showing his assets as nil, He submitted a second statement of assets, Ex. 1/6, on 15 February 1958 in which he disclosed acquisition of certain properties under three sale-deeds, Exs. 6 dated, 5 August 1957, 6/1 dated 18 November 1957, and 6/2 dated 9 August 1957. The total consideration for the three sale-deeds, was Rs. 1,35,000. On 25 January 1959, a Review Team appointed by the railway reported that there was overpayment to the contractors in the matter of classification of the soil. Thereafter, an enquiry was taken up by the railway department against the appellant. After the conclusion of the enquiry a first information report was lodged against the appellant. An investigation followed and as a result of the investigation the appellant was chargesheeted for offences under Sections 5(1)(a) to 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The specific charge levelled against the appellant was to taking illegal gratification from the contractors in the matter of classification of soils and of conspiracy with the contractOrs. There was no direct evidence led on behalf of the prosecution to show that there was payment by any of the contractors to the appellant of any illegal gratification. The trial Judge after examining the prosecution evidence held that there was no satisfactory proof that the appellant classified the soils in the earthwork in a higher category than what it should have bean and thereby made illegal gain to himself or the contractOrs. But the trial Judge convicted the appellant of criminal misconduct on the application of the presumption arising under Section 5(3) of Act 2 of 1917, that is, on the ground that the appellant had pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known source of income. The trial Judge sentenced the appellant for rigorous imprisonment for six months. Subject to this modifications, the High Court dismissed the appeal.;