LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus WASUDEO RAMCHANDRA KAIDALWAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
675
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
v •
. WASUDEO RAMCHANDRA KAIDALWAR
May 6, 1981
[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, A.P. SEN AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-Section 5(2) read with section 5(1}(e)-
Scope of.
Jnterpretation-"assets disproportionate to the known sources of income"
meaning of.
Evidence-Burden of proof under section 5(2) read with section 5(l}(e)-On
whom lies.
The respondent was a Range Forest Officer on a monthly salary of Rs. 515.
In a search conducted by an officer of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rs. 26
thousand-odd in cash, savings bank accounts in the names of himself, his wife
and children, national savings certificates, postal saving certificates, gold and
silver oranments, sale deeds of certain properties in the name of his wife, sister-in-
law and brother-in-law aggregating in all to over Rs. 79 thousand were discovered
from his house. On the allegation that he was found in possession of assets
disproportionate to his known sources of income he was charged with offence
punishable under section 5(2) read with section 5(J)(e) of the Prevention of
Corrouption Act, 1947.
The respondent pleaded that he led a frugal life and that secondly much of
the property found in his house belonged to his father-in-law. He added that his
father-in-Jaw was a pairokar of a Zamindar in the area, that two sisters of his
father-in-Jaw were the kept mistresses of the Zamindar, and the Zamindar gave
large amounts of cash and presents most of which were passed on to his father-
in-Jaw. At the time of his death, his father-in-law entrusted his minor daughter
and son to his care and instructed that his property should be divided among
his three children equally and that therefore he was holding the property merely
as a custodian.
Rejecting the plea of the respondent a Special Judge convicted and sentenced
him under section 5(2) read with section 5(I)(e) of the Act.
On appeal a single Judge of the High Court acquitted him holding that the
prosecution had failed to discharge the burden of disproving all possible sources
of the respondent's income, that it was not possible to exclude the probability
that the property found in his possession could be the property left by his father-
in-law, and that mere possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources
B
c
D
E
F
G
of income would not be sufficient to bring home the guilt under section 5(1)(e)
H
unless the prosecution further excluded all possible sources of income. The
High Court was also of the view that the changes brought a bout by the Anti-
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
676
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1981] 3 S.C.R.
Corruption Laws (Amen.!ment) Act, 1964 had the effect ofJimiting the presump-
tion of guilt arising under section 4(1) of the Act to an offence of criminal
misconduct spe~ified i~ _section S(J)(a) and (b) and not to that in section 5(1){e).
HELD: , The COnstru~tion ,placed by the High Court on sectiori S(l)(e) was
wrong in that it overlooked the fact that, by the use of the words "for which
the public servant cannot satisfactorily acquit", a burden is cast on the accused.
'
[680 BJ
-- '·.
,·,.
Section 5(3) which now stood deleted, did not create an offence separate from
the one created by /section 5(1) bu( only raised a presumptioii of criminal mis·
conduct if he or any person on his behalf was in possession of pecuniary resources
or property disproportionate to his known sources of income which he cou1d not
siitisfactoriJy accoUnt. · OnCe the prosecution proves this fact the burden shifts
on to the accused to prove the source of acquisition of such assets. [681 F-G]
• ,.
Th~ Cxpr~Ssi-on "knowil sourCes Or in~ome" in the ·context of the section
means "sources known to the prosecution''.
Secondly~ the onus placed on the
accused under the section was not to prove his innocence beyond reasonable
d_oubt ·bUt orily·· to establish a preponderarice of probability: To ·eradicate
th_e widespread ·corruption fn ·-public serviceS the legislature:· dispeD.sed with.
the Tule of evidence under section 5(3) and made possession b:Y a public
sCrvaflt of assets disproportionaie to his income as one of the si>ecies of offences·
cif criminal misconduct by iriserting Clause (e) in section 5(1). [682 A-C]
·
r.-.·-·
-
-· ;· .. · . .''
- , '·
.
·,_ -- . . .
.
. , -
- The me·aning.to be assi£:ned·. to the expression ~'known sources of income~' 1
occurring· in section 5(t)(e) must be the sam~ as was given toExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.