STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. POLLONJI DARABSHAW DARUWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by special leave by the State of Maharashtra, arises out of and is directed against the judgment, dated, April 29-30, 1976 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 1044 of 1973 on its file setting aside respondent's conviction and sentence dated 21-7-73, under S. 5(1)(e) read with S. 5(2). Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947 ('Act' for short) in Special Case No. 24/70 on the file of the Special Judge, Greater Bombay.

(2.) At the relevant time, respondent, Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla, was an appraiser in the customs department at Bombay. He and several other customs officers were suspected of their complicity in certain offences, concerning export of stainless steel ware to Hongkong. On 9-12-1968, Police Inspector (P. W. 34), armed with a warrant in this behalf searched the residential-premises of the respondent in the course of the investigation of that case. Though nothing incriminatory for purpose of that investigation was discovered, however, the search revealed respondent's possession of furniture, refrigerator, tape-recorder and cash of Rs. 7593 which were susceptible of the suspicion of the commission of an offence under S. 5(1)(e) read with S. 5(2) of the 'Act'. P. W. 34, accordingly, obtained the requisite authorisation to investigate into this offence and after investigation sought and obtained on 26-10-1970 sanction to prosecute respondent. On 2-11-1970, the charge-sheet was placed against the respondent for an offence under S. 5(1)(e) read with S. 5(2) of the Act.

(3.) The substance of the charge was that respondent, as a public servant, between the period of 1-4-1958 and 31-12-1968 was in possession of pecuniary resources and property of the value of Rs. 2,62,122.15; that his known sources of income during the said period was Rs. 85,114.12; that, therefore, the property possessed by the respondent was disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of Rs. 1,71,647/- for which respondent could not satisfactorily account and that thereby respondent was guilty of criminal misconduct within the meaning of and punishable under S. 5(2) of the Act. Respondent having pleaded not guilty, the matter went for trial.