J N RAY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitoner was an employee of the South Central Railway. He worked as Assistant Medical Officer in the Railway Hospital at Dornakal till 4th September, 1969 on which date his residence at Dornakal was searched by an Officer of the Special Police Establishment, Hyderabad. He was charge-sheeted under section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act" in C.C. No. 27 of 1971 on the file of the Special Judge for S. P. E. and A. C. B. Cases, Hyderabad, on the ground that he was found in possession of assets of the value of Rs. 1,16,646.99 Ps. and they were disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of Rs. 84,455. 51 PS. Before the trial was taken up, the petitioner filed an application before the Special Judge under section 530 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to drop all further proceedings against him alleging that section 5 (1) (e) of the Act came into operation only on 18th December, 1964 and before that date it is not an offence to be in possession of property disproportionate to his known sources of income by any Government servant, that the charge against the petitioner comprises the entire assets of the petitioner including those that were acquired prior to 18th December, 1964 and that the charge as framed amounts to giving retrospective effect to section 5 (1) (e) of the Act which is not p rmissible under Article 20 (1) of the Constitution. The learned Special Judge without agreeing with this contention dismissed the application. Hence this revision.

(2.) The charge against the petitioner is that he joined the service of the Central Railway on 15th February, 1956 as an Assistant Surgeon starting on a salary of Rs. 100 per month. Subsequently he was promoted as Assistant Surgeon Grade I with effect from 1st August, 1957 and was later promoted as Assistant Medical Officer in the then Central Railway with effect from ist January, 1966. The total income of the petitioner from his known sources during the period from 15th February, 1956 to 4th September, 1969, the date on which his residence at Dornakal was searched, was Rs. 1,00,691.04 Ps. and the total expenditure incurred by him during the said period was Rs. 68,499 56 Ps., whereas on 4th September, 1969 he was found in possession of assets of the value of Rs. 1,16,641.99 Ps., as against his likely savings during the period of the extent of Rs. 32,191.48 Ps. Thus the assets "of the petitioner were disproptionate to his known sources of income to the extent of Rs. 84,455.51 Ps. The petitioner could not satisfactorily account for the said pecuniary sources and assets which were disproportionate to his known sources of income. Thus the petitioner committed the offence punishable under section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (e) of the Act.

(3.) Sri T.V. Sarma, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the assets of the value of Rs. 1,16,646-99 Ps., which the petitioner was found in possession of on 4th September, 1969 include the assets which he acquired prior to 18th December, 1964 on which date only section 5 (1) (e) of the Act came into operation, the assets which the petitioner acquired prior to that date cannot be taken into account and what has to be considered is after ascertaining the assets which the petitioner was ow ing as on 18th December, 1964 and adding to those assets the subsequent income of the petitioner and out of the total of the two after deducting the probable expenses of the petitioner during the period subsequent to 18th December, 1964 the balance alone has to be looked into to find out whether the petitioner was in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income or not. Therefore the charge as framed on the basis of calculating the total income from 15th February, 1956 to 4th September, 1969 and deducting therefrom the probable expenses during the said period and on that basis to find out whether the assets which were found in possession of the petitioner as on 4th September, 1969 were disproportionate to his known sources of income or not amounts to giving retrospective effect to section 5 (1) (e) of the Act which is not permissible under Article 20 (1) of the Constitution.