STATE Vs. BHARAT CHANDRA ROUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Alleging commission of criminal misconduct as set out in Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the 'Act'), prosecu tion has sought for action against Shri Bharat Chandra Roul, (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused'), a public servant. It is alleged that he is guilty of offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act read with Section 8(3), of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 1990 (in short, the 'Special Act').

(2.) Section 13, deals with various situations when a public servant can be said to have committed criminal misconduct. Clause (c) of Sub-Section (1) of the Section is pressed into service against the accused. The same is applicable when the public servant or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Clause (e) of Sub-Section (1), of Section 5, of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1939 (referred to as 'Old Act'). But there has been drastical amend ments. Under the new clause, the earlier concept of "known sources of income" has undergone a radical change. As per the explanation appended, the pros ecution is relieved of the burden of investigating into "source of income" of an accused to a large extent, as it is stated in the explanation that "known sources of income" mean income received from any lawful sources, the receipt of which has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. The expression "known source of income" has reference to sources known to the prosecution after thorough investigation of the case. It is not, and cannot be contended that "known sources of in come' means sources known to the accused. The prosecution cannot, in the very nature of things be expected to know the affairs of an accused person. Those will be matters "specially within the knowl edge" of the accused, within the meaning of Section 106, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short, the 'Evidence Act').

(3.) The phrase "known sources of income" in Section 13(1) (e) (old Section 5(1) (e)) has clearly the emphasis on the word "income." It would be primary to observe that qua the public servant, the income would be what is attached to his office or post, commonly known as remuneration or salary. The term "income" by itself, is classic and has a wide connotation. Whatever comes in or is received, is income. But, however, wide the import and conno tation of the term "income", it is incapable of being understood as meaning receipt having a nexus to one's labour, or expertise, or property, or invest ment, and being further a source which may or many not yield a regular revenue. These essential charac teristics are vital in understanding the term "In come". Therefore, it can be said that, though "in come" in receipt in the hand of its recipient, every receipt would not partake into the character of in come. Due the public servant, whatever return he gets of his service, will be the primary item of his income. Other income which can conceivably be income qua the public servant, will be in the regular receipt from (a) his property, or (b) his investment. A receipt from windfall, or gains of graft, crime or immoral secretions by parsons prima facie would not be receipt for the "known sources of income" of a public servant.