SURAJPAL SINGH versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1961] 2 S.C.R. 971 · Decided: 07-12-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
971 
SURAJPAL SINGH 
• 
v. 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., s. K. DAS, .A. K. SARKAR, 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and 
J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Criminal Misconduct-Acquittal under one category of criminal 
misconduct charged-Conviction under another category not charged 
-Legality of-Presumption, whether creates an offeme-Prevention 
of Corruption Act, z947 (II of z947), s. 5, sub-ss. (I), (z), (3). 
The appellant was a Head Constable attached to a malkhana 
where articles seized in connection with excise offences were 
kept in deposit. The appellant was charged under s. 5(1)(c) 
read with s. 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, in that he 
had dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated or otherwise 
converted to his use these articles; the charge further stated 
that a sum of Rs. 9,284-1-0 was recovered from him which was 
disproportionate to his known sources of income. He was acquitted 
of the charge under s. 5(1)(c) but was convicted under s. 5(2) on 
the ground that he had failed to account satisfactorily for the 
possession of Rs. 9,284-1-0 which was disproportionate to his 
known sources of income. 
Held, that the conviction of the appellant under s. 5(2) of 
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was illegal. The only 
charge against the appellant was of criminal misconduct under 
s. 5(1)(c) of the Act for dishonestly or fraudulently misappro-
priating property entrusted to him and of this charge he could 
have been convicted by invoking the rule of presumption under 
s. 5(3). But since this was not done and he was acquitted of 
that charge, he could not be.convicted of criminal misconduct 
referred to in els. (a), (b) or (d) of s. 5(1) for which he had not 
been charged. The Courts below had proceeded wrongly on the 
footing as though sub-s. (2) or sub-s. (3) of s. 5 created .lln 
offence; the offence which was punishable under s. 5 (2) or which 
could be founded on the rule of presumption under s. 5(3) was 
the offence of criminal misconduct of one or more of the cate-
gories mentioned in els. (a) to (d) of sub-s. (1) of s. 5. 
C. S. D. Swamy v. The State, [1960] I S.C.R. 461, refer-
red to. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDIOTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 169 of 1959. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated March 27, 1958, of the Allahabad High 
• 
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 785of1955. 
December 7. 
z960 
Surajpal Singh 
v. 
The State of 
Uttar Pradesh 
S. K. Das .T· 
972 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961) 
Nuruddin Ahmad and Naunit Lal, for the appel-
lant. 
G. C. Mathur and 0. P. Lal, for the respondent. 
1960. 
December 7. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
S. K. DAS, J.-This is an appeal by special leave 
from the judgment and order of the High Court of 
Judicature at Allahabad dated March 27, 1958, where-
by the said High Court maintained the conviction of 
the appellant under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1947 (2 of 1947) but reduced the sen-
tence of four years' rigorous imprisonment passed on 
the appellant by the Special Judge, Kanpur, to two 
years' rigorous imprisonment. 
The short facts are these. 
The appellant Surajpal 
Singh was employed in the Police Department of the 
Uttar Pradesh Government. He started his service as 
a constable on a salary of Rs. 13 per month from 
August 1, 1930. In 1946 his pay was increased to 
Rs. 46 per month. He was appointed a Head con-
. stable on a salary of Rs. 50 per month in 1947. He 
officiated as a Sub-Inspector of Police sometime in 
1948 and 1949 on a salary of Rs. 150 per month. On 
March 1, 1949, he was reverted to his post of Head 
constable. Between the dates February 27, 1951, and 
September 9, 1952, he was posted as a Head constable 
attached to the Sadar Malkhana, Kanpur. The charge 
against him was that in that capacity he dishonestly or 
fraudulently misappropriated or otherwise converted 
to his own use many articles, principally those seized 
in connection with excise offences kept in deposit in 
the said Malkhana. These articles included opium, 
bottles of liquor etc. The charge further stated that 
a sum of Rs. 9,284-1-0 was recovered on a search of 
his house on September 9 and 10, 1952 and this 
amount was disproportionate to the known sources of 
income of the appellant. There was an allegation by 
the prosecution that the acts of dishonest misappro-
priation etc. were committed by the appellant in .con-
spiracy with two other persons called Bhagawat S

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