riminal Appeal No 33 of 1952
Appeal under Article 1341c from the Judgment and Order dated the 19th February 1952 of the 93 High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No 66 of 1950 arising out of the Judgment and Order dated the 19th September 1950 of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge Cuttack Dhenkanal Cuttack in Sessions Trial No 9 C of 1950
Nur ud Din Ahmed R Patnaik and R C Prasad for the appellant
R Ganapathy lyer for the respondent
April 7
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BOSE J
The appellant was an Inspector of Factories under the Government of Orissa It was a part of his duty to inspect factories and mills in the State of Orissa
He toured the districts of Koraput and Balasore from 18th August 1948 to 27th August 1948 and from 29th September 1948 to 30th October 1948 respectively
The prosecution case is that he collected bribes from persons connected with some of the mills he inspected in those districts
It is said that he used to threaten to close their mills and impose other penalties for alleged defects unless they paid him a bribe
On 3rd October 1948 he was camping at the Dak Bungalow at Basta in the Balasore district
Because of information received against him his person and belongings were searched on that day and a sum of Rs 3148 was recovered from him consisting of Rs 450 paid at the time as a trap and Rs 2698 already in his possession
He was arrested on the spot but was later released on bail
Departmental and other proceedings were taken against him and he was eventually brought to trial on 29th March 1950 and charged under section 52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act II of 1947 for criminal misconduct in the shape of habitually accepting illegal gratification
He was also separately charged and separately prosecuted under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code for three specific offences of bribe taking but we are not concerned here with that as he was acquitted on all three counts
His conviction here is under section 52 alone
The trial Court 94 sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs 5000
The High Court upheld the conviction on appeal but reduced the sentence to two years and a fine of Rs 3000
The accused applied for a certificate to appeal under article 1341c on three points
The High Court held that two of them were not of sufficient importance to justify the issue of a certificate particullarly as one of the two was covered by the principle laid down by this Court
But it granted leave on all three as it considered that the first point was of importance
The points were formulated as follows i whether the view of this Court as to the requirement of sanction in a case of this kind and the interpretation of Morarka s case in AIR 1948 PC p 82 adopted by this Court in its judgment are correct iiwhether the interpretation of this Court relating to the requirements as to the corroboration of an accomplice witness in a bribery case with reference to the latest unreported case of the Supreme Court which has been referred to in the judgment and which has since been reported in 1952 SCJ p 46 is correct and iiiwhether the law as propounded by the decision now  sought to be appealed against with reference to the considerations that arise in judging the presumptions under section 53 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is correct
 The first point arises in this way
Four kinds of criminal misconduct are set out in section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act
They are enumerated in clauses a b c and d of sub section 1
The sanction is general and does not specify which of these four offences was meant
It runs as follows  Government of Orissa
Commerce and Labour Department
Order No 4561Com dated 3 11 1948
In pursuance of section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 II of 1947 the Governor of 95 Orissa is hereby pleased to accord sanction for prosecution of Sri B B Nayak Inspector of Factories
Orissa employed in connection with the affairs of the Province under sub section 2 of section 5 of the said Act
Nature of offence committed Criminal misconduct in discharge of official duty
By order of the governor Sd V Ramanathan Secretary to Government
It was contended that the Privy Council held in Gokutchand Dwarkadas Morarka vs The King1 that such a sanction is invalid
The High Court rejected this argument
We agree with the High Court
The passage of the Privy Council judgment on which reliance is placed is as follows In their Lordships  view in order to comply with the provisions of clause 23 it must be proved that the sanction was given in respect of the facts constituting the offence charged
It is plainly desirable that the facts should be  referred to on th face of the sanction but this is not essential since clause 23 does not require the sanction to be in an particular form nor even to be in writing
But if the facts constituting the offence charged are not known on the face of the sanction the prosecution must prove by extraneous evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority
 The Judgment of the Judicial Committee relates to clause 23 of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control
Order 1943 but the principles apply here
It is no more necessary for the sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act to be in any particular form or in writing or for it to set out the facts in respect of which it is given than it was under clause 23 of the Order which their Lordships were considering
The desirability of such a course is obvious because when the facts are not set out in the sanction proof has to be given 1 AIR 1948 PC 82
96 aliunde that sanction was given in respect of the facts constituting the offence charged but an omission to do so is not fatal so long as the facts can be and are proved in some other way
The High Court finds that the facts to which the sanction relates were duly placed before the proper sanctioning authority
We need not consider the evidence about telephone calls and the like because the letter of the District Magistrate asking for sanction Exhibit 26 is enough to show the facts on which the sanction is based It is in these terms I have the honour to report that Sri BB Nayak Inspector of Factories Orissa in the course of his visit to this district had been visiting certain mills and on information received by me that he had been collecting heavy sums as illegal gratification from the Manager or Proprietor of Mills under threat of mischief to the mill owners it was arranged to verify the truth of this information by handing over 3 hundred rupee notes marked with my initials in presence of the Superintendent of Police and two other respectable gentlemen and millowners on the evening of the 2nd October 1948
On the 3rd October the Factory Inspector having actually received the illegal gratification of Rs 45o which sum included the three marked hundred rupee notes the Prosecuting Inspector seized the marked notes along with a further heavy sum of Rs 2698 from his possession
Under section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 the accused being a public servant in the employ of the Provincial Government the sanction of the Provincial Government is necessary prior to taking cognisance of an offence under section 161 Indian Penal Code or subsection 2 of section 5 of the Act A sanction based on the facts set out in this letter
namely the information received about the collection of heavy sums as bribes and the finding of Rs 2698 in his possession would be sufficient to validate the present prosecution
It is evident from this letter and from the other evidence that the facts placed before the 97 Government could only relate to offences under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and clause a of section 51 of the Prevention of Corruption Act
They could not relate to clauses b or c
Therefore when the sanction was confined to section 5 2 it could not in the circumstances of the case have related to anything but clause a of sub section 1 of section 5
Therefore the omission to mention clause a in the sanction does not invalidate it
The present prosecution is confined to section 51a which runs as follows 1 A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct in the discharge of his dutya 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 Indian Penal Code
 Then comes sub section 3 which sets out a new rule of evidence in these terms In any trial of an offence punishable under subsection 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 pecuniary 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 Therefore all that the prosecution has to do is to show that the accused or some person on his behalf is in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income and for which the accused cannot satisfactorily account
Once that is established then the Court has to presume unless the contrary is proved that the accused is guilty of the new offence created by section 5 namely criminal misconduct in the discharge of his official duty
13 98 Now the accused was found in possession of Rs 3148
He accounted for Rs 450 of that sum by showing that it was paid to him at the time as a trap
He has been acquitted of that offence so all he had to account for was the balance Rs 2698
This is a large sum for a touring officer to carry with him in cash while on tour
His explanation was not considered satisfactory and that is a question of fact with which we are not concerned in this Court
Therefore all that remains to be seen is whether this was disproportionate to his known sources of income
The accused is a Government Factory Inspector and we were told that his salary is only Rs 450 a month
The High Court finds that the total sums drawn by him during his entire period of service of thirteen months was Rs 6045 as salary and Rs 2155 as travelling allowance
It also finds that he owns 0648 acres of land which brings in no income worth the name
On the expenditure side of the accused s account the High Court finds that he has a substantial family establishment which would not leave him enough margin for saving such a large sum of money
No other source of income has been disclosed
It is evident that no touring officer of his status and in his position would require such a large sum of money for his touring purposes even if he was away from headquarters for a month
His explanation was considered unsatisfactory by both Courts and was disbelieved
These are all questions of fact
Once the facts set out above were found to exist and the explanation of the accused rejected as unsatisfactory section 53 was at once attracted and the Court was bound to presume the word used in the section is shall and not may that the accused was guilty under section 52 especially as this part of the section goes on to say and his conviction therefor shall not be invalid by reason only that it is based solely on such presumption
 These facts alone are enough to sustain the conviction and we need not consider the other matters
The High Court was right in holding that the sanction was sufficient and in convicting the accused
99 The third point set out in the certificate of the High Court relates to the absence of particulars in the charge and we gathered from the arguments in the sanction
But no particulars need be set out in the charge in such a case because the offence under section 51a does not consist of individual acts of bribe taking as in section 161 of the Indian Penal Code but is of a general character
Individual instances may be useful to prove the general averment in particular cases but it is by no means necessary because of the presumption which section 53 requires the Court to draw
There was therefore no illegality either in the sanction or in the charge nor has the accused been prejudiced because he knew everything that was being urged against him and led evidence to refute the facts on which the prosecution relied
He was also questioned about the material facts set out above in his examination under section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code and was given a chance then as well to give such explanation as he wished
The appeal fails and is dismissed
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
Held that it is not necessary for the sanction for an offence punishable under section 52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 Act II of 1947 to be in any Particular form or in writing or for it to set out the facts in respect of which it is given
It is however desirable to state the facts on the face of sanction because when the facts are not set out in the sanction proof has to be given aliunde that sanction was given in respect of the facts constituting the offence charged but an omission to set out the facts in the sanction is not fatal so long as the facts can be and are proved in some other way
Where the sanction was confined to section 52 of the Act it could not under the circumstances of the case have related to anything but clause a of sub section 1 of section 5 and therefore an omission to mention clause a in the sanction did not invalidate it
under section 53 of the Act all that the prosecution has to do is to show that the accused or some person on his behalf is in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income and for which the accused cannot satisfactorily account
Once that is established then the Court is bound to presume unless the contrary is proved that the accused is guilty of the new offence created by section 5 namely criminal misconduct in the discharge of his official duty
Held also that there was no illegality either in the sanction or in the charge on the ground that no particulars were given because the offence under section 51a of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not consist of individual acts of bribe taking as in section 161 IP C but is of a general character and individual instances are not necessary because of the presumption which section 53 requires the Court to draw
Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka vs The King AIR 1948 PC 82 referred to