Criminal Appeal No 177 of 1957
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 11 1957 of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Appeal No 7 D of 1955 arising out of the 463 judgment and order dated January 19 1955 of the Court of Special Judge at Delhi in Corruption Cas No 2 of 1953
G section Pathak R Ganapathy Iyer and G Gopalakrishnan for the appellant
C K Daphtary Solicitor General of India GC Mathur and R H Dhebar for the respondents
May 21
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA J
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court on Judicature for the State of Punjab at Chandigarh dated April 11 1957 affirming those of the Special Judge Delhi dated January 19 1955 convicting the appellant under section 52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 2 of 1947
The sentence passed upon the appellant was six months  rigorous imprisonment
The facts leading upto this appeal may shortly be stated as follows During and after the Second World War with a view to augmenting the food resources of the country the Government of India instituted a Grow More Food Division in the Ministry of Agriculture
section Y Krishnaswamy a Joint Secretary in that Ministry was placed in charge of that Division with effect from January 2 1947
The appellant was working in that Department as Director of Fertilizers
He was a former employee of the well known producers of fertilizers etc called Imperial Chemical Industries 
Fertilizers were in short supply and therefore large quantities of such fertilizers had to be imported from abroad
As chemical fertilizers were in short supply not only in India but elsewhere also an international body known as the  International Emergency Food Council  IEFC had been set up in United States of America and India was a member of the same
That body used to consider the requirements of different countries in respect of fertilizers and used to make allotments
Russia was not a member of that Organisation
Towards the end of 1946 a Bombay firm called Messrs Nanavati and Company  464 which used to deal in fertilizers and had bussiness contcts with Russia offered to supply ammonium sulphatefrom Russia to the Government of India
In the years 1947 and 1948 considerable quantities of ammonium sulphate were obtained through Messrs Nanavati and Company aforesaid
One D N Patel who was a former employee of Messrs Nanavati and Company joined a partnership business under the style of Messrs Agri Orient Industries Limited of Bombay 
This firm obtained a contract from the Government for the supply of twenty thousand tons of ammonium sulphate from United States of America in February 1950
In the course of this business deal the said patel experienced some difficulty in obtaining Government orders regarding some consignments
The appelant was approached in that connection and it is aleged that Patel paid to the appellant Rs 10000 at Bombay as bribe for facilitating matters
But in spite of the alleged payment difficulties and delays occurred and the consignments even after they had reached heir destination in India were not moving fast enough thus causing considerable loss to the firm in which Patel was interested
Patel therefore approached Shri K M Munshi who was then the Minister For Food and Agriculture in Delhi and disclosed to him the alleged payment of bribe of Rs 10000 as also the fact that the appellant had been receiving arge sums of money by way of bribes for showing favours in the discharge of his duties in the Department
The Minister aforesaid directed thorough enquiries to be made and the matter was placed in the hands of the Inspector General of Special Police Establishment
A departmental committee was also set up of three senior officers of the Department to hold a departmental inquiry and ultimately as a result of that inquiry the Minister passed orders of dismissal of the appellant in August 1950
A further inquiry in the nature of a quasi judicial inquiry was held by the late Mr Justice Rajadhyaksha of the Bombay High Court in 1951
The inquiry related to matters concerned with the import of fertilizers into India
After receipt of the report of the inquiry by 465 the late Mr Justice Rajadhyaksha in January 1952 and after consideration of the matters disclosed in that report a first information report was lodged on April 4 1952 and thorough investigations were made into the complaints
The result was that two cases were instituted
The first one related to an  alleged conspiracy involving the appellant Krishnaswamy and one of the proprietors of Messrs Nanavati and Company and several others relating to bribery and corruption in connection with the supplies of ammonium sulphate from Russia
With that case we are not concerned here
The second case out of which the present appeal arose was instituted against two persons namely the appellant and Krishnaswamy that they had entered into a conspiracy to receive bribes and presents from various firms in connection with the import of fertilizers
The learned Special Judge who heard the prosecution evidence came to the conclusion that it did not disclose any conspiracy as alleged except in certain instances which formed the subject matter of the charge of conspiracy which was being tried separately as aforesaid
The present case therefore proceeded against the appellant alone under two heads of charge namely 1 that he had been habitually accepting or obtaining for himself or for others illegal gratifications from a number of named firms and others in connection with the import and distribution of fertilizers section 51 a of the Prevention of Curruption Act 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act  and 2 that he had been habitually receiving presents of various kinds by abusing his position as a public servants
6 1 d of the Act
The High Court in agreement with the learned Special Judge found the evidence of P Ws 9 and 10 who were the principal prosecution witnesses as regards the passing of certain sums of money from certain named firms to the appellant as wholly unreliable
Further more Patel being in the position of an accomplice his evidence did not find sufficient corroboration from other facts and circumstances proved in the case
The High Court not being is a position to accept the tainted evidence aforesaid found that the case of payment of 59 466 particular sums of money by way of bribes had not been established
But relying upon the presumption under sub section
3 of section 8 of the Act the High Court came to the conclusion that the appellant had not satisfactorily accounted for the receipt of Rs 73000 odd in cash and about Rs 18000 by cheques during the years 1947 and 1948 which sums were wholly disproportionate to the appellant s known source of income namely his salary as a Government servant and that therefore he was guilty of criminal mis conduct in the discharge of his official duties
In that view of the matter the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of six months  rigorous imprisonment passed by learned Special Judge of Delhi
The learned counsel for the appellant has contended 1 that on the admitted facts the ingredients of section 53 of the Act had not been established 2 that when the charge in respect of specific instances of corruption has not been proved as found by the courts below it should have been held that the contrary of the presumption contemplated by section 53 namely of the guilt of criminal misconduct had been established and 3 that the appellant s statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as also his statements contained in his written statement had not been proved to be false and that therefore it should have been held that the case against the appellant had not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt
It is true that section 53 of the Act does not create a new offence but only lays down a rule of evidence enabling the court to raise a presumption of guilt in certain circumstances a rule which is a complete departure from the established principles of criminal jurisprudence that the burden always lies on the prosecution to prove all the ingredients of the offence charged and that the burden never shifts on to the accused to disprove the charge framed against him
With reference to the provisions of section 53 of the Act it has been contended in the first instance that the charge of criminal misconduct in the discharge of his official duties is now confined to the fact as disclosed in his bank accounts with the Imperial Bank of India 467 New Delhi Branch and the Chartered Bank of India Australia and China Chandni Chowk Branch that his nett credit with those banks totalled upto a figure just over Rs 91000
He accounted for that large balance by stating that he was the only son of his father who had been able to give him advanced education in England for a period of over seven years that after his return to India he had been holding highly paid posts for about 20 years in the Imperial Chemical Industries in the Army and in the Government of India that he had no children and no other dependants except his wife that with his limited household expenses he was able to save a good round sum out of his salary and allowances which were considerable because his duty took him throughout the length and breadth of the country thus enabling him to earn large sums of money by way of travelling allowances which he saved by staying with his friends and relations during his official tours
He added that he had received a gratuity for services rendered to the Army and also considerable sums of money as his provident fund from the Imperial Chemical Industries towards the end of November 1947
He also stated that his deposits in the two banks aforesaid represented sums of money saved in cash out of his salaries allowances and gifts from his parents as also re payments of loans advanced by him to his friends while he was in the Army and later
He added that some of the deposits in cash were really re deposits of earlier withdrawals from the banks as also the sale proceeds of his old car sold in June 1948 for Rs 5500 together with the sale proceeds of gold jewelry belonging to his wife
He also tried to explain the large deposits of cash in 1948 by alleging that he had borrowed a sum of rupees 20000 from one Ganpat Ram on a pronote which he later on re paid and obtained a receipt with a view to building a house of his own in Delhi but as that negotiation fell through he deposited that cash amount in his account in the two banks aforesaid in August 1948 as the creditor aforesaid would not accept re payment of the loan within a period of two years unless the interest for that period was also paid 468 at the same time
With reference to those statements of the accused from the dock it was contended by the learned counsel for the accused that in view of those facts it could not be said that the accused had not accounted for those large deposits with the two banks aforesaid
The High Court has pointed out that the matters alleged in the  statement aforesaid of the accused were capable of being easily proved by evidence which had not been adduced that allegation was no proof and that his lucrative posts in the Imperial Chemical Industries and in the Army were matters of history in relation to the period for which the charge had been framed
The High Court therefore found it impossible to accept the appellant s bare statement from the dock as to how amounts earned far in the past could find their way into the banks during the years 1947 and 1948
It has been repeatedly observed by this Court that this Court is not a Court of criminal appeal and we would not therefore examine the reasons of the High Court for coming to certain conclusions of fact
Apparently the High Court considered all the relevant statements made by the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in his written statement and came to the conclusion that those statements had not been substantiated
We cannot go behind those findings of fact
Reference was also made to cases in which courts had held that if plausible explanation had been offered by an accused person for being in possession of property which was the subject matter of the charge the court could exonerate the accused from criminal responsibility for possessing incriminating property
In our opinion those cases have no bearing upon the charge against the appellant in this case because the section requires the accused person to  satisfactorily account for the possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income
Ordinarily an accused person is entitled to acquittal if he can account for honest possession of property which has been proved to have been recently stolen see illustration a to section 114 of the 
The rule of law is that if there 469 is a prima facie explanation of the accused that he came by the stolen goods in an honest way the inference of guilty knowledge is displaced
This is based upon the well established principle that if there is a doubt in the mind of the court as to a necessary ingredient of an offence the benefit of that doubt must go to the accused
But the Legislature has advisedly used the expression satisfactorily account
 The emphasis must be on the word  satisfactorily  and the Legislature has thus deliberately cast a burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came by his large wealth but also to satisfy the court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance
Another argument bearing on the same aspect of the case is that the prosecution has not led evidence to show as to what are the known sources of the appellant s income
In this connection our attention was invited to the evidence of the Investigating Officers and with reference to that evidence it was contended that those officers have not said in terms as to what were the known sources of income of the accused or that the salary was the only source of his income
Now the expression  known sources of income  must have reference to sources known to the prosecution on a thorough investigation of the case
It was not and it could not be contended that  known sources of income  means sources known to the accused
The prosecution cannot in the very nature of things be expected to know the affairs of an accused person
Those will be matters  specially within the knowledge of the accused within the meaning of section 106 of the Evidence Act
The prosecution can only lead evidence as it has done in the instant case to show that the accused was known to earn his living by service under the Government during the material period
The prosecution would not be justified in concluding that travelling allowance was also a source of income when such allowance is ordinarily meant to compensate an officer concerned for his out of pocket expenses incidental to journeys performed by him for his official tours
That could not possibly be alleged 470 to be a very substantial source of income
The source of income of a particular individual will depend upon his position in life with particular reference to his occupation or avocation in life
In the case of a Government servant the prosecution would naturally infer that his known source of income would be the salary earned by him during his active service
His pension or his provident fund would come into calculation only after his retirement unless he had a justification for borrowing from his provident fund
We are not therefore impressed by the argument that the prosecution has failed to lead proper evidence as to the appellant s known sources of income
It may be that the accused may have made statements to the Investigating Officers as to his alleged sources of income but the same strictly would not be evidence in the case and if the prosecution has failed to disclose all the sources of income of an accused person it is always open to him to prove those other sources of income which have not been taken into account or brought into evidence by the prosecution
In the present case the prosecution has adduced the best evidence as to the pecuniary resources of the accused person namely his bank accounts
They show that during the years 1947 and 1948 he had credit at the banks amounting to a little over Rs 91000
His average salary per mensem during the relevant period would be a little over Rs 1100
His salary during the period of the two years assuming that the whole amount was put into the banks would be less than one third of the total amount aforesaid to his credit
It cannot therefore be said that he was not in possession of pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known sources of income
It was next contended that the burden cast on the accused by sub s3 of section 5 of the Act was not such a heavy burden as lies on the prosecution positively to prove all the ingredients of an offence
In that connection reference was made to a number of decisions particularly Rex vs Carrbriant1 to the effect 1  referred to under article 3907 at p 1511 in Archbold Criminal Pleading Evidence and Practice  34th Edn 471 that the onus of proof lies on the accused person to show that a certain proved payment was in fact not a corrupt payment but that the burden is less heavy than that which ordinarily lies on the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt
Reference was also made to Otto George Gfeller vs The King 1 Hate Sing Bhagat Singh vs State of Madhya Bharat 2 and Regina vs Dunbar3
In our opinion those decisions do not assist the appellant in the present case
In this case no acceptable evidence beyond the bare statements of the accused has been adduced to show that the contrary of what has been proved by the prosecution has been established because the requirement of the section is that the accused person shall be presumed to be guilty of criminal misconduct in the discharge of his official duties  unless the contrary is proved
 The words of the statute are peremptory and the burden must lie all the time on the accused to prove the contrary
After the conditions laid down in the earlier part of sub section
3 of section 5 of the Act have been fulfilled by evidence to the satisfaction of the court as discussed above the court has got to raise the presumption that the accused person is guilty of criminal misconduct in the discharge of his official duties and this presumption continues to hold the field unless the contrary is proved that is to say unless the court is satisfied that the statutory presumption has been rebutted by cogent evidence
Not only that the section goes further and lays down in forceful words that  his conviction therefore shall not be invalid by reason only that it is based solely on such presumption
 Lastly it was argued that when the section speaks of the burden being on the accused person to prove the contrary it must mean adducing evidence to disprove the charge
The argument proceeds that as in the present case the facts and circumstances mentioned in the charge had not been proved the accused person must be acquitted as having disproved the charge with reference to the particular cases of bribery which had been held not proved
In our opinion there is a 1 AIR 1943 PC 211
2 AI R 3 472 fallacy in this argument
The finding of the High Court and the court below is that the prosecution had failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove those particular facts and circumstances of criminal misconduct within the meaning of section 51a of the Act but the failure to bring the charge home to the accused under section 51a does not necessarily lead to the legal effect contended for
As soon as the requirements of sub section 3 of section 5 have been fulfilledthe Court will not only be justified in making but is called upon to make the presumption that the accused person is guilty of criminal misconduct within the meaning of section 51d
In order to succeed in respect of the charge under section 51a the prosecution has to prove that the accused person had accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain from any person any gratification by way of bribe within the meaning of section 161 of the Indian Penal Code
That charge failed because the evidence of PW 9 was not accepted by  the High Court or the trial court
The charge under section 51d does not require any such proof
If there is evidence forthcoming to satisfy the requirements of the earlier part of sub section
3 of section 5 conviction for criminal misconduct can be had on the basis of the presumption which is a legal presumption to be drawn from the proof of facts in the earlier part of the sub section
3 aforesaid
That is what has been found by the courts below against the accused person
Hence the failure of the charge under cl
a of sub section
1 of section 5 does not necessarily mean the failure of the charge under section 51d
In our opinion the judgment of the High Court is correct and the appeal is accordingly dismissed
If the accused is on bail he must surrender to his bail bond
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant was employed as an Assistant Store Keeper in the Central Tractor Organisation Delhi
He took delivery of a consignment of iron and steel received by rail for the Organisation and removed them from the railway siding
The goods did not reach the Organisation
The appellant absented himself from duty on the following days and when he was called he gave a false explanation that he had not taken delivery of the goods
The appellant 1 was tried for misappropriation of the goods under section 51c of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
At the 453 trial he took the defence that he had moved the goods to another siding but this was not accepted and the appellant was convicted
The appellant contended that his conviction was bad as the prosecution had failed to prove that he converted the goods to his own use and did not apply them to the purpose for which he had received them
Held that the appellant had been rightly convicted
The offence of misappropriation was established when the prosecution proved that the servant received the goods that he was under a duty to account to his master and that he had not done so
If the failure to account was due to an accidental loss then the facts being within the servant s knowledge it was for him to explain the loss it was not for the prosecution to eliminate all possible defences or circumstances which may exonerate him
The giving of a false explanation was an element which the Court could take into consideration in determining the guilty intention
Harakrishna Mehtab vs Emperor AIR 1930 Pat 209 Larnier vs Rex  Emperor vs Santa Singh AIR 1944 Lah 338 Emperor vs Chattur Bhuj  Rex vs William 1836 7 C  P 338 and Reg vs Lynch  referred to