LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus KALIAR KOIL SUBRAHMANIAM RAMASWAMY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E G H 274 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. KALIAR KOIL SUBRAHMANIAM RAMASWAMY August 8, 1977 [N. L. UNTWALIA AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ .] Constitution of India-Article 20(1)-Wherher a person can be convicted for an act which was not an offence when committed. Prevention of Corruption ACt 1947-Section 5(1)(e)-Whether, it is .neces- sary to prove that the pro"perty was acquired after the offence was co1nnzitted. The respondent/accused \Vas an Inspector in Regional Transport Office, Kolhapur. Under a search warrant his house was· searched and a lot ot pro- perty \vas recovered from his possession. While the matter was still . under investigation, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was amended by insert- ing clause (e) in sub-section (1) of s. 5, The spCcial Judge, Kolbapur, on 3rd April 1969, held the accused guilty of offences u/cJ. (a), (b), (d) and (e) of sub. s. (1) of s. 5 of Prevention of'Corruption Act 1947 and under s. 161' ancf 165 of IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 20,000 /-. The accused filed an appeal against his conviction and the High Court held that there was not even one witness who supported the prosecution case under s. 5(1)(a), (b), (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The High Court also held that as there \Vas nothing on the record to show that the accused was in possession or came into possession of any pecuniary resources or p.rppertv disproportionate to his known sources of income, after the enactment of Clause ( e) of sub·section ( 1) of s. 5 of the Act by the amending Act of 196;4, his conviction under that clause was "illegal inasmuch jlS the said clause (e} could not be interpreted as to apply to the possession of the property and resources by the appellant before it \Vas enacted." The accused was accordingly acquit~d by High Crinrt. The Supreme Court granted speciz.·l leave limited to the queslion \vhether the- acquittal of the accused for the offence under s. 5(1)(c) of the Act \vac; justified? · Dismissing the appeal. HELD: (1) aause (e) of sub-section (I) of s. 5 came into existence on December 18. 1964 by the Amending Act of 1964. It added yet another clause to the four clauses which constituted the offence of criminal misconduct under sub·section (1) of s. 5. The result of the insertion was that mere possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to be known sources of income of a public servant, for \Vhich he coul<l not satisfactorily account, be- came an offence by itself. Such a possession was not, however, an offence by itself until December 18, 1964 although there \Vas a third sub·section of s. 5 before that date which created a rebuttable presumption to Prove offences under clause (a) to (d) of s. 5(1). (276 F,G. 277A-B] (2) The Legislature, it appears, thereafter, thought it proper to do away with the rule of e"vidence provided by sub·sec. (3) of s. 5 and inserted a new clause (e) in sub-section (1) of s. 5 as one more category of the offence of criminal mi.c;conduct. But it cannot be gainsaid that the new offence under the newly inserted clause (e) became an offence on and from December 18, 1964 by virtue of s. 6 of Amending Act 40 of 1964. In this view of the matter, the High Court rightly held that "in the absence of any evidence on record to show that the appellant acquired or was found to be in PO&~ession of pecuniary· resources etc. after the coming into force of the Amendini:t: Ace:. he was enlitled to the protection of clause ( 1) of Article 20 of the Constitu- tion. [277D-FJ \ MAHARASHTRA v. K. K. S. RAMASWAMY (Shinghal, J.) 2 7 5 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 6 A of 1972. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Ord;;r dated 8-10-1971 of the Bombay High Court in Crl. A.No. 1575 of 1969. M. N. Phadke and M. N. Shroff for the Appe'Jlant. V. S. Desai, S. B. Wad and (Mrs.) Jayashree Wad for the Res- B pondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHINGHAL J.,-Respondent Kaliar Koil Subramaniam Ramas- wamy, who will hereinafter be referred to as the accused, was working as Inspector in the Regional Transport Office, Kolhapur. His house wa·s searched by Inspector R. K. Shukla (P. W. 164) under a search warrant issued by a magistrate of the First Class under section 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on May 17, 1964, and a lot of properly was recovered from his possession. That led
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.