S. K. KALE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 533 · Decided: 17-12-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

533 
S. K. KALE 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
December 17, 197 6 
[P. N. BHAGWATI AND S. MURTAZA FAzAL ALI, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, s. 5(1)(d), onus probandi, whether 
to be discharged by the Qf:cused. 
Constitution of India, Article 136, Re-appraisal of evidence under, when 
called for. 
The appellant was posted as the Local Purchase Officer at the Army Ordn-
ance Depot in Poona district. 
In connection with the purchase . of some engi-
neering tools, charges were brought against him under s. 5(1)(d) read with s. 
5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for having procured pecuniary benefit 
for a certain contractor by corrupt means, thereby causing wrongful loss to the 
army department. 
The Trial Court convicted the appellant, and· in appeal the 
High Court confirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court granted him Special 
Leave to appeal under Art. .136 of the Constitution, and allowing the appeal, 
HELD : 1. Both the courts below had proceeded on the footing that it was 
for the accused to prove the ingredients of s. 5 ( 1 )( d) of the Act. This approach 
was wrong. It was for the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the appellant 
by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position obtained any pecuniary 
advantage for some other person. [536 C-D] 
2. Normally this Court in special ·leave against a concurrent juagment of 
the High Court and the trial Court does not re-appraise the evidence, but here 
we find that both the courts below have drawn wrong inferences from proved 
facts and have made a completely wrong approach to the whole case by misplac-
ing the onus of proof which lay on the prosecution on the accused and J)resum-
ing that the accused had a dishonest intention. 
[536 B-C, HJ 
Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kera/a [1963] Supp. 2 SCR 724; 73lJ-731~ 
referred to. 
· 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 301 of 
,.(., 
·' 197 l. 
l..y 
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 
15th/16th June 1971 M the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal 
No. 1405 of 1969). 
P .. H. Parekh and Miss Manju Jatley, for the appellant. 
H. R. Khanna and M. N. Shroff, for respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
F AzAL ALI, J.-Corruption and nepotism is so rampant in our 
society of to-day, and more particularly in the services, that the Indian 
Penal Code was not considerd sufficient to meet this menace, and the 
H 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947)-hercinafter 
referred to as 'the Act'-had to be enacted and amended from time 
to time to stamp out this evil. · This is an appeal by special leave 
534 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1977] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court affirming the 
conviction of the appellant under s. 5 ( 1 )( d) read with s. 5 (2) of the 
Act and the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment passed 
by the Special Judge, Bombay. 
B 
c 
D 
F 
H 
The facts of the present case are more or less undisputeJ and are 
the least complicated and, therefore, they fall within a very narrow 
compass, and by and large we have to examine whether or not the 
inferences drawn by the High Court from the proved facts arc legally 
correct and lead to only one hypothesis, namely, that the accused is 
guilty. 
It may be necessary to give a resume of the prosecution case before 
indicating the evidence and the circumstances relied upon by the courts 
below in convicting the appellant. The appellant was a senior officer 
in the Anny, holding the rank of a Major, and was at the material time 
the local Purchase Officer, hereinafter to be rderrcd to as LPO, at 
Ordnance Depot at Talegaon Dabhade, 
District Poona. Following 
the Chinese attack in 1962 an Emergency was declared and the Army 
required certain engineering tools to be supplied immediately. 
The 
Ordnance Depot, Jabalpur, sent a requisition of engineering tools to the 
Ordnance Depot at Talegaon Dabhade, Poona. In this connection the 
Control Officer of the Ordnance Depot wrote a letter to the Group 
· Officer requesting him to despatch the stores immediately. The Group 
Officer consequently wrote a letter to the appellant who was the LPO 
at the relevant time to arrange the supply of stores immediately. The 
appellant was directed to purchase the stores locally and to deliver 
them to the Group Officer. The Group Officer also indicated in his 
letter that the stores requisitioned by him were not available at the 
Depot at

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