ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus KRISHNARAO DUDHAPPA SHINDE

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 756 · Decided: 05-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 1 S.C.R. 756 
A 
ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
KRISHNARAO DUDHAPPA SHINDE 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1052 of 2002) 
B 
FEBRUARY 5, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGUL Y, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - s.5(1)(e) - Criminal 
c misconduct in discharge of official duty - Conviction u/ 
s.5(1)(e) - Order of High Court that any acquisition of wealth 
disproportionate to his known sources of income prior to 1964 
not to be taken into account since prior to 1964, it was not an 
offence - On appeal, held: High Court dealt with the scope 
D and ambit of s.5(1)(e) and did not examine the other aspects 
- Matter remitted back to High Court for considering the other 
~.,,, 
aspects. 
The question which arose for consideration in this 
E appeal was whether High Court was justified in holding 
that any acquisition of wealth said to be disproportionate 
to the known sources of income of the accused prior to 
1964 could not be taken into account since prior to 1964 
the same was not an offence uls. 5(1 )(e) of the Prevention 
F 
of Corruption Act, 1947. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: High Court did not examine the other aspects 
and only dealt with the applicability of Section 5(1)(e) of 
G the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on the factual 
position. While the order of the High Court is set aside 
so far as it relates to the scope and ambit of Section 
5(1 )(e) of the Act, the matter is remitted to it for 
considering the other aspects which according to the 
H respondent were in issue before the High Court in appeal 
756 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. KRISHNARAO DUDHAPPA 757 
SHIN DE 
filed by the accused person. [Para 8] [761-E-F] 
A 
State of Maharashtra v. Kaliar Kofi Subramaniaum 
Ramaswamy 1977 (3) SCC 525; Ramanand Pundalik Kamat 
vs. State of Maharashtra ILR 1973 Born 1066 and Sajjan 
Singh vs. State of Punjab 1964 (4) SCR 630, referred to. 
8 
Case Law Reference: 
1977 (3) sec 525 
ILR 1973 Born 1066 
1964 (4) SCR 630 
Referred to 
Referred to 
Referred to 
Para 2 
Para 2 
Para 6 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1052 of 2002. 
c 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 30.4.2002 of the 
D 
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Crl. Appeal No. 930 of 
1985. 
Madahvi Divan and Ravindra Keshavrao for the Appellant. 
R. Sundaravardhan and Shivaji M. Jadhav for the 
E 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to 
the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. 
F 
By the impugned judgment the High Court set aside the 
judgment of the trial Court, and directed acquittal of the 
respondent. 
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
G 
The respondent a government servant was Inspector of 
Police at the time when a raid was conducted in his house on 
28.12.1971. He was convicted for offence punishable under 
Section 5( 1 )( e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 194 7 (in 
short the ·Act') and was sentenced to under minimum sentence 
H 
758 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A of one year and was directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,50,000/-. 
The only point which was examined by the High Court was 
whether the respondent could be convicted for acquisition of 
wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income prior 
to 1964 i.e. from the date of inception of service on 29.5.1944 
B till the date of raid under Section 5(1 )(e) which came into force 
only on 18.12.1964. The High Court was of the view that any 
acquisition of wealth said to be disproportionate to his known 
sources of income prior to 1964 could not be taken into account 
since prior to 1964 the same was not an offence. Reliance was 
c placed by two judgments for the purpose one of this Court in 
State of Maharashtra v. Ka/iar Kofi Subramaniaum 
Ramaswamy (1977 (3) SCC 525), and the other of the Bombay 
High Court in Ramanand Pundalik Kamat v. State of 
Maharashtra (ILR 1973 Born 1066). 
D 
3. The primary stand of learned counsel for the appellant 
is that the scope and ambit of Section 5(1 )(e) of the Act has 
been lost sight of. 
4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand 
E supported the judgment. 
F 
5. Section 5(1 )(e) of the Act reads as follows: 
"5. Criminal misconduct in discharge of official duty: 1. A 
public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal 
misconduct.. 
(e) if he, or any person on his behalf is in possession or 
has at any time during the period of his office, been in 
posse
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.