C. S. D. SW AMY versus THE STATE

Citation: [1960] 1 S.C.R. 461 · Decided: 21-05-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
461 
The prosecution also set out to prove that the goods 
z959 
were disposed of by the appellant by giving them to one Krishan Kumar 
Gurbachan Singh who in turn put these at the premi-
v. 
ses of Amar Singh and some steel goods were recover- The Union of India 
ed 
from there but the prosecution 
have neither 
produced Gurbachan Singh nor has it been proved 
Kapur J. 
that the goods are part of the consignment which was 
taken delivery of by the appellant. If under the law 
it js not necessary or possible for the prosecution 
to prove the manner in' which the goods have been 
misappropriated then the failure of the prosecution 
to prove facts it set out to prove would be of little 
relevance. The question would only be one of intention 
of the appellant and the circumstances which have been 
been above set out do show that the appellant in 
what he ha.s done or has omitted to do was moved by 
a guilty mind. 
In our opinion the appellant was rightly convicted 
and we would therefore dismiss this appeal. 
.A.J>peal dismissed. 
C. S. D. SW AMY 
v. 
THE STATE 
(B. P. SINHA, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and 
K. N. W ANCHOO, JJ.) 
Prevention of Corruption-Criminal miscondztct in discharge 
of official duty-Charge in respect of specific instances of corruption 
found unsustainable on evidence-Conviction based on presumption-
V a:tidity-Prevention of Corruption Act, z947, (2 of z947), ss. 5(z)(a), 
5(z)(d), 5(3). 
The appellant was put up on trial on charges under ss. 5(1)(a) 
and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Payments 
of particular sums by way of bribe were not proved against him. 
But the High Court, holding that the'appellant's bare statements 
.., 
from the dock unsupported by any other acceptable evidence 
could not satisfactorily account for the large deposits standing to 
his credit in his bank accounts raised. the presumption under 
s. 5(3) of the Act and held him guilty of criminal misconduct in 
the discharge of his official duty under s. 5(1)(d) of the Act, 
confirming the condction and sentence passed on him by the 
l959 
May 21. 
'959 
C. S. D. Swamy 
v. 
The State 
462 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1}] 
Special Magistrate. It was contended on behalf of the appellant 
that'the charge relating to specific instances of bribery having 
failed, the contrary to the presumption under s. 5(3) of the Act 
should have been held as established and in absence of any finding 
that his statements were false it should have been held that the 
charge against him had not been proved beyond all reasonable 
doubt . 
. Held, that s. 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act did not 
create a new offence but only laid down a rule of evidence that 
empowered the Court to/ presume the guilt of the accused in 
certain circumstances, contrary to the well-known principle of 
criminal law that the burden of proof was always on the prosecu-
tion and never shifted on to the accused. 
The Legislature by using the expression " satisfactorily 
account " in s. 5(3) of the Act, cast the burden on the accused.not 
only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came by the 
large wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income, but 
also fo satisfy the court that his explanation was worthy of 
credence. Consequently, cases under the general law where it 
had been held that the accused could be exonerated if he offered 
a plausible explanation could have no application. 
The expression "known sources of income " · used in that 
section referred to such sources of income as became kno\vn to 
the prosecution as a result of the investigation and could not 
mean those that were within the special knowledge of the accused, 
and it was no part of the duty of the prosecution to lead evidence 
in that regard. 
Where-the prosecution fulfilled the conditions laid down by 
the earlier part of s. 5(3) of the Act, the statutory presumption 
had· to be raised and it would be for the accused to rebut the same 
by cogent evidence. 
Rex v. Carrbriant, (1943) 1 K.B. 6o7, and Otto George Gfeller 
v. The King, A.LR. (30) 1943 P.C. 2rr; Hate Singh Bhagat Singh 
v. State of Madhya Bharat, A.LR. 1953 S.C. 468 and Regina v. 
Dunbar, 1958 1 Q.B. I, held inapplicable. 
The failure to substantiate a charge under s. 5(1){a) of the 
Act on evidence would not necessarily mean an acquittal in 
respect of a charge under s. 5(1)(d) of the Act. If the require-
ments of the earlier part of s. 5(3) were established by evidence

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