R B SUBBAIYYA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal IB brought by a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution from the judgment of the Patna High Court, dated 18 October 1965, in Criminal Appeal No. 410 of 1963.

(2.) During the relevant period between 16 March 1957 and 27 October 1958, the appellant was working as District Engineer under the Southeastern Railway at Naomundi Banspani which is located in the district of Singhbhum. The charge against the appellant was that during the aforesaid pariod, he committed criminal misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a public servant and obtained pecuniary advantage for himself and others by giving contractors favourable rates in respect of earthwork done by them and by acquisition of assets worth more than Rs. 3 lakhs which were disproportionate to his known sources of income and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 5(2) read with Sections 5(1)(a) to 6(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (2 of 1947). Sections 5(1)(a) to 5(1)(d) of Act 2 of 1947 as it stood at the material time read as follows:

(3.) The appellant served as Military Engineer from 1913 to 1945. He had his automobile business at Coimbatore from 1917 to 1949. He Joined military service again from 1949 to 1956. He was appointed as a temporary Assistant Engineer under the Southeastern Railway on 13 April 1956 and was first posted at Waltair. He took charge as District Engineer at Naomundi on 16 March 1957 and remained there till 25 October 1958 when he resigned from service. His legal remuneration for his work under the railways came to be about Rs. 21,000. At the time the appellant joined service under the Southeastern Railway he submitted a statement, Ex. 1/7, showing his assets as nil, He submitted a second statement of assets, Ex. 1/6, on 15 February 1958 in which he disclosed acquisition of certain properties under three sale-deeds, Exs. 6 dated, 5 August 1957, 6/1 dated 18 November 1957, and 6/2 dated 9 August 1957. The total consideration for the three sale-deeds, was Rs. 1,35,000. On 25 January 1959, a Review Team appointed by the railway reported that there was overpayment to the contractors in the matter of classification of the soil. Thereafter, an enquiry was taken up by the railway department against the appellant. After the conclusion of the enquiry a first information report was lodged against the appellant. An investigation followed and as a result of the investigation the appellant was chargesheeted for offences under Sections 5(1)(a) to 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The specific charge levelled against the appellant was to taking illegal gratification from the contractors in the matter of classification of soils and of conspiracy with the contractOrs. There was no direct evidence led on behalf of the prosecution to show that there was payment by any of the contractors to the appellant of any illegal gratification. The trial Judge after examining the prosecution evidence held that there was no satisfactory proof that the appellant classified the soils in the earthwork in a higher category than what it should have bean and thereby made illegal gain to himself or the contractOrs. But the trial Judge convicted the appellant of criminal misconduct on the application of the presumption arising under Section 5(3) of Act 2 of 1917, that is, on the ground that the appellant had pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known source of income. The trial Judge sentenced the appellant for rigorous imprisonment for six months. Subject to this modifications, the High Court dismissed the appeal.