GUNJIT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, appellant beside challenging the order of the Special Judge on merits, thereby convicting him for criminal misconduct under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1947 (in short the Act), has also raised a legal question of importance regarding the construction on the provision of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (in short the Code).

(2.) The ingredients of the offence of Criminal misconduct under Section 5(2) read with Sections 5(1)(e) are the possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to the known sources of income for which public servant cannot satisfactorily account. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution has to prove (i) that the accused is a public servant, (ii) nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property which were found in his possession, (iii) it must be proved as to what were his known sources of income i.e. known to the prosecution and (iv) it must prove, quite objectively that such sources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income. By establishing these ingredients prosecution brings home the guilt of the accused unless he is able to account for the same. It is at this stage that the burden shifts to the accused. But it must be kept in mind that the accused is not bound to prove his innocence beyond all reasonable doubts. The Evidence Act does not contemplate that accused should prove his case with same strictness and regour as the prosecution is required to prove a criminal charge. It is sufficient if the accused is able to prove his case by the standard of preponderance of probability as a result of which he succeeds not because he proved his case to the hilt but because probability of the version given by him throws doubt on the prosecution case and, threfore, the prosecution cannot be said to have established the charge beyond reasonable doubts.

(3.) The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence are (i) that the onus lies affirmatively on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and it cannot derive any benefit from correctness or falsity of the defence version by proving its case, (ii) that in a criminal case accused must be presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty and (iii) that the onus of the prosecution never shifts.