C.R. BANSI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 236 · Decided: 15-12-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Modified

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

236 
C.'R. BANSI 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
December 15, 1970 
[S. M. SIKRI, V. BHARGAVA AND I. D. DuA, JJ.J 
Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1941), ss. 5(3) and 6--Scope of 
The appellant, who was an Income-tax Officer, was dismissed from 
servil:e and against the order of dismissal he filed an appeal to the Presi· 
dent .of India. 
Meanwhile, he was charged under the Prevention 
of 
Corrupti()n Act, 1947, with the offence of habitually accepting bribes. 
Five instances were offered by the prosecution in evidence aginst him 
to prove the charge. The trial court accepted the evidence regarding 
two instances, and convicted the 
appellant under s, 5(2) 
read with 
ss. 5(1)(d) and 5(3) of the Act drawing the presumption under s. 5(3) 
(before its amendment in 1964) against him on the ground that he was 
in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. 
He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay 
a fine of Rs. 1,25,000/-, to be recovered from the properties siezed from 
him, The High Court accepted the evidence regarding one more instance 
and confirmed the conviction and sentence. 
In appeal to this Court, 
c· 
HELD : (I) The trial is not bad for lack of santcion under s. 6 of 
the Act. The appellant ceased to be a public servant when the order of 
E: 
dismissal was passed. The fact that an appeal was pending would not 
make him a public servant. 
Sanction is necessary only when the pen;on 
is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and not when he 
was employed. [241 D·FJ· 
(2)Since the charge was one of habitually accepting bribes 1! was 
not necessary that specific instances of taking bribe should be given in 
F 
the charge. [241 GJ 
Biswabhusan Naik v. State of Orissa, [1955] 1 S.C.R. 92, followed. 
(3) The appellant had property disproportionate to his known sources 
of income and the presumption under s. 5(3) of the Act was rightly 
drawn against him. 
Failure to establish any of the offences in s. 5(1)(a) 
to ( d) is irrelevant for sustaining a conviction based on the presumption. 
G 
Biswabhusan Naik v. State of Orissa, [1955] I S.C.R. 92 and C. S. D. 
Sll'<imy v. Stat<, [1960) I S.C.R. 461, followed. 
Surajmal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, V961] 2 S.C.R. 971 and 
R. S. Pandit v. State of Bihar, L1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R., 652, referred to and 
explained. [245 CJ 
( 4) In view of the fact that the appellant had undergone the sentence 
U 
{or....;ibout four months and a large fine was imposed on him, the ends 
I 
of juStice would be met if the sentence is reduced to one already under· 
..
gone while maintaining the sentence Of fine. [246 B-CT 
B 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
C.R. BANS! v. MAHARASHTRA (Sikri, J • .) 
237 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
83 of 1965. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and ?rder. d~ted 
October 19, 24, 1964 of .the Bombay High Court m Cnmmal 
Appeal No. 1330 of 1964. 
A. S. R. Chari, R. Nagaratnant, Vineet Kumar and Shyamala 
Pappu, for the appellant . 
.Debabrata Mukherjee, H. R. Khanna and S. p, Nayar, for the 
respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered 0by 
Sikri, J. This is an appeal by. s~ 
leave against the 
judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay 
dismissing the appeal of the appellant against the conviction 
recor&d by the Special Judge for Greater Bombay. The appel-
lant was convicted by the Special Judge under s. 5(2), read 
withs. 51 ( 1) (a) X (d) ands. 5 (3), of the Pr>~vention of Corrup-
ti9n Act, 1947 (II of 1947)-hereinafter referred to as the Act-
and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years 
and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,25,000/-, in default of payment of 
fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. lfhe 
Special Judge further directed that the amount of fine be re-
covered from the properties seized. 
The following charge was framed against the appellant: 
"That you, while functioning as (a) Income-tax 
Officer, from about 1st April 194 7 
to 
November 
1954 at Jalgaon Dhulia, Godhra and Mahansa (b) 
as· Inspector of Income-tax from November 1954 to 
January 1958 at Surat and Broach, (c) as Income-
tax Officer from January 1958 to the end of November 
196 I at Bhavnagar, Dhulia, Amraoti and Ratnagiri, 
habitually accepted or obtained and habitually agreed 
to accept or attempted to obtain gratification other 
than legal remuneration and obtained for 
yourself 
pecuniary advantage by corrupt and illegal means or 
by otherwise a

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