LexK. VEERASWAMI versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
K. VEERASW AMI
v.
A
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
JULY 25, 1991
{B.C. RAY, K. JAGANNATHA SHETIY, LAUT MOHAN
B
SHARMA, M.N. VENKATACHALIAH AND J.S. VERMA, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947: Ss. 2, 5( l)(e), 5(2), 6( 1)(c)-
Public servant-Possession of pecuniary resources or property dispro-
portionate to known sources of income-Prosecution after superannua-
tion-Previous sanction-Whether necessary.
Judge of High Court/Supreme Court-Whether 'public ser.vant',
liable to prosecution under the Act-Sanctioning authority-Who is.
Sanctioning authority-Whether vertically superior in the hier-
c
archy in which office of the public servant exists.
D
Cl. (c) of s. 6( 1)-Whether independent of and separate from
clauses (a) and (b )-Rule of ejusdem generis-Applicability of.
Independence of Judiciary-Whether affected by application of
the Prevention of Corruption Act to Judges of High Court/Supreme
E
Court-Issuance of guidelines by Court.
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Ss. 19, 21-"Judge"-Whether inclu-
des a High Court/Supreme Court Judge- Whether 'public servant'
under s. 2 of Prevention of Corruption Act.
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 74, 79, 121, 211, 124, 2 17,
218-Provision for initiation of proceeding for removal of a ludge-
Whether a ground for withholding criminal prosecution of a Judge for
offence under s. 5( 1)( e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
F
Independence of Judiciary-Effect of application of Prevention of G
Corruption Act, J.947 to Judges of superior Courts.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Ss. 154, 173(2), 173(5)-
0ffence committed by public servant under s. 5( l)(e) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1947-Complaint regarding-/ni1estigation of-
Requirements-Police report/Charge sheet-Contents of:·
H
189
A
B
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1991] 3 S.C.R.
Evidence Act., 1872: S. 106-0ffence committed under s. 5( !)(e)
of Prevention of cbrruption Act, 1947-Possession of property dispro-
portionate to known sources-Whether fact within special knowledge
of thepublic servant-Burden of proof-On whom.
Words and Phrases: "sati~facrori/y account"-Meaning of.
Statutory Interpretation: Rule of ejusdem generis- Explalned.
A complaint against the appellant, a former Chief Justice of a
High Court, was made to the CBI on which a case under s. 5(2) read
withs. 5( l)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered
C
on 24.2.1976. On 28.2.1976 the F.l.R. was filed in the court of Special
Judge. The appellant proceeded on leave from 9.3.1976 and retired on
8.4.1976 on attaining the age of superannuation.
The investigation culminated in the filing of charge-sheet/final
report under s. 173(2), Cr. P.C. against the appellant on 15.12.1977
D before the Special Judge.
The Charge-sheet stated that the appellant after assuming office
of the Chief Justice on 1.5.1969 gradually comme~ced accumulation of -
assets and was in possession of pecuniary resources and property, in his
name and in the names of his wife and two sons, disproportionate to his
E
known sources of income for the period between the date of his appoint-
ment as Chief Justice and the date of registration of the case, and
thereby he committed the offence of criminal misconduct under
s. S(l){e), punishable under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1947. The Special Judge issued process for appearance of the appellant.
Meanwhile, the appellant moved the High Court under s. 482, Cr. P.C.
F to quash the said criminal proceedings.
G
The matter was heard by a Full Bench of the High Court which
dismissed the application by ~: 1 majority; but granted a certificate
under Articles 132(1) and 134( l)(c) of the Constitution in view of the
important question of law involved.
In appeal to this Court it was contended by the appellant that the
provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 do not apply to a
Judge of a superior Court as for such prosecution previous sanction of
an authority competent to remove a public servant as provided under
s. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is imperative and power
H to remove a Judge is not vested in any single individual authority but is
-·
~
K. VEERASWAMI v. U.0 .1.
191
vested in the two Houses of Parliament and the President under Article
124(4) of the Constitution; that the Parliament cannot be the sanction-
ing authority for the purpose of s. 6 and if the President is regarded as
the authority, he cannot act independently as heExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.