BISWABHUSAN NAIK versus THE STATE OF ORISSA.

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 92 · Decided: 07-04-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, VIVIAN BOSE, GHULAM HASAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1954 
. . APril 7• 
92 
.. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
BISWABHUSAN NAIK 
ti. 
THE STATE OF ORISSA. 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., VIVIAN BosE 
and GHULAM HASAN JJ.] 
[1955] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (II of 1947)-Section 5(1), 
(2), (3) and section ~anction under section 6--Whether necessary 
to be in any particular form-No particu~ars given in the charge or 
sanction-Legal effect thereof. 
Held, that it is not necessary for the sanction for 
an offence 
punishable under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 
1947 (Act II of 1947) 
to be in any particular form or in writing or 
t 
for it to set out the facts in respect of which it is given. It is, how~ 
c;ver, 
Qesirable 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 . .L 
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 5(2) 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 invali-
date it. 
· 
Under section 5(3) of the Act all that the prosecution has to do 
is to show that the accused or some per~on on his behalf is in pos-
session 
of pecuniary resources 
or property disproportionate to his 
known sources of income and for which the accused cannot satis-
factorily 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 5(1)(a) of the Prevention of 
Corruption Act does 
not consist of individual acts of bribe taking 
as in section 161 I.P.C. but is of a general character and individual 
instances are not necessary because of the presumption which sec-
tion 5(3) requires the Court to draw. 
Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. Th< King (A.LR. 1948 P.C. 
82) referred to. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 33 of 1952. 
Appeal under Article 134(1)(c) from the Judgment .f 
and Order dated the 19th February, 1952, of the 
' 
J 
-
f
• 
, . 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
93 
High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Criminal Appeal 
No. 66 of 1950 arising out of the Judgment and Order 
<lated the 19th September, 1950, of the Court of . the 
Additional 
Sessions 
Judge, 
Cuttack-Dhenkanal, Cut-
tack, in Sessions Trial No. 9-C of 1950. 
Nur-ud-Din Ahmed, R. Patnaik and R. C. Prasad, 
for the appellant. 
R. Ganapathy Iyer, for the respondent. 
1954. 
April ':J. 
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. 
Be.cause 
of information received 
against him his 
person and 
belongings were searched on that 
day and a sum of 
Rs. 3,148 was recovered from him consisting of Rs. 450 
paid at the time as a trap and Rs. 2,698 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 5(2) of 
the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947) for 
criminal misconduct in the shape of habitually accept-
ing 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 no

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.