STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus POLLONJI DARABSHAW DARUWALLA

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 906 · Decided: 10-11-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
POLLONJI DARABSHAW DARUWALLA 
NOVEMBER 10, 1987. 
B 
[A.P. SEN AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.) 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-Respondent's acquittal of 
offence under section 5(J)(e), read with section 5(2), thereof challen-
ged. 
The respondent, Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla, was an appra-
C iser in the Customs Department. The police searched his residential 
premises on a suspicion of his complicity in certain offences concerning 
the export of the Stainless Steel-Ware, in the course of the investigation 
of that case. Though nothing incriminatory for the purpose of that 
investigation was discovered, the search revealed that the respondent 
D was in possession of property and pecuniary resources, disproportion-
ate to his known sources of income between 1.4.1958 and 31.12.1968, 
for which he could not satisfactorily account for. This led to the suspicion 
of the commission by the respondent of an offence under the Prevention 
I • 
of Corruption Act, 1947, and the respondent was charge-sheeted for an 
offence under section 5(1)(e), read with section 5(2) of the Act. In sup- Y 
E port of the charge, a number of documents pertaining to the respon-
dent's investments in the banks, in the company deposits and on shares, 
both in his own name and jointly with his wife, as also the documents 
pertaining to the salary and emoluments of the respondent between 
1.4.1958 and 31.12.1968 were brought on record in evidence. The 
defence was that the respondent was in possession of substantial assets 
F even anterior to 1.4.1958. 
The Special Judge ~eld the respondent guilty and sentenced him 
to rigorous imprisonment and fine. The respondent filed an appeal 
before the High Court against the Judgment and Order of the Special 
Judge. The High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the respon· 
G dent. The State appealed to this Court by special leave against the 
decision of the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD: In order to establish that a public-servant is in possession 
H of pecuniary resources and property disproportionate to his known 
906 
, 
·", 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. P.D. DARUWALLA 
907 
A 
sources of income, it is not imperative that the period of reckoning be 
spread out for the entire stretch of anterior service of the public-
servant. There can be no general rule or criterion, valid for all cases, in 
regard to the choice of the period for which accounts are taken to 
establish criminal misconduct under section S(I)(e) of the Act. The 
choice of the period must necessarily be determined by the allegations of 
fact on which the prosecution is founded and rests. However, the period B 
must be such as to enable a true and comprehensive picture of the 
known sources of the income and the pecuniary resources and property 
in possession of the public servant either by himself or through any 
other person on his behalf which are alleged to be so disproportionate. 
A ten year period cannot be said to be incapable of yielding such a true 
and comprehensive picture. The assets spilling-over from the anterior 
period, if their existence is probablised, would, of course, have to be C 
given credit to on the income side and would go to reduce the extent and 
quantum of the disproportion. It is for the prosecution to choose what is 
the period, having regard to the acquisitive activities of the public 
servant, and characterise and isolate that period for special scrutiny. In 
this case, the selection of a ten year period between 1.4.1958 and D 
31.12.1968, cannot, by reason alone of the choice of the period, be said 
to detract from the maintainability of the prosecution, and the view of 
the High Court on these points is erroneous. [913C-F; 914E; 9ISC-D] 
Once the prosecution establishes the essential ingredients of-the 
offence of criminal misconduct by proving, that the public servant is, or E 
was, at any time during the period of his offence, in possession of 
pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his sources of 
income known to the prosecution, the prosecution has discharged its 
burden of proof and the burden of proof is lifted from the shoulders of 
the prosecution and.descends upon the shoulders of the defence. It then 
becomes necessary for the public servant to satisfactorily account for F 
the possessicm of such properties and pecuniary resources. It is errone-
ous to predicate that the prosecution should also disprove the existence 
of the possible so

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