Tuesday, 31 March 2015

Whether accused can be convicted under prevention of corruption Act when disproportionate asset in his possession in less?


 In State of Maharashtra v. Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla MANU/SC/0294/1987 : AIR 1988 SC 88 this Court held as under:
...on a consideration of the matter it cannot be said that there is no disproportion or even a sizeable disproportion.... There are also other possible errors in the calculations in regard to point (c). The finding becomes inescapable that the assets were in excess of the known sources of income. But on the question whether the extent of the disproportion is such as to justify a conviction for criminal misconduct...., a somewhat liberal view requires to be taken of what proportion of assets in excess of the known sources of income constitutes "disproportion" for purposes of Section 5(1)(e) of the Act.

Equivalent Citation: AIR2011SC1363, 2011CriLJ1770, 2011(2)JCC1153, 2011(1)N.C.C.861, 2011(2)RCR(Criminal)99, 2011(2)SCALE735, (2011)4SCC402, (2011)2SCC(Cri)258, [2011]3SCR242
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 945 of 2003
Decided On: 25.02.2011
Appellants: Ashok Tshering Bhutia
Vs.
Respondent: State of Sikkim
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
P. Sathasivam and B. S. Chauhan, JJ.
Print Page

Whether court has jurisdiction to try case under prevention of corruption Act on the basis of defective sanction?


Equivalent Citation: AIR1954SC637
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided On: 07.05.1954
Appellants: Madan Mohan Singh
Vs.
Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B. K. Mukherjea, Vivian Bose and Ghulam Hasan, JJ. 

Criminal - Validity of Sanction - Obtained for prosecution - Section 6 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1947 - Section 161 Indian Penal Code,1860 - Whether the sanction obtained for prosecution of the accused was valid - Whether the Court has jurisdiction - Held, the letter of sanction not signed by Commissioner of Excise but purports to have been signed by Personal Assistant - Further there was nothing in the letter which purports to be a reply of wireless message received by Collector to show that sanction was given in respect of the facts constituting the offence - Prosecution did not prove any extraneous evidence, that the material facts were placed before the sanctioning authority - Moreover burden of proving the requisite sanction has been obtained rests on the prosecution -Such burden includes proof that the sanctioning authority had given the sanction in reference to the facts on which the proposed prosecution was to be based - and these facts might appear on the face of the sanction or might be proved by extraneous evidence - In the present case the facts constituting the offence do not appear on the face of the letter Ex. P-10 - It was consequently incumbent upon the prosecution to prove by other evidence that the material facts constituting the offence were placed before the sanctioning authority - Hence sanction therefore be held to be defective and invalid sanction could not confer jurisdiction upon the court to try the case - Appeal allowed
Print Page

When burden of proof in respect of benami transaction in anti corruption case is on prosecution?


 Needless to say that this Court on a series of decisions have laid down the guidelines in finding out the benami nature of a transaction. Though it is not necessary to cite all those decisions, it will suffice to refer to the rule laid down by Bhagwati, J. as he then was in Krishnanand Agnihotri v. State of M.P. MANU/SC/0134/1976 : 1977CriLJ566 . In that case, it was contended that the amounts lying in fixed deposit in the name of one Shanti Devi was an asset belonging to the appellant and that Shanti Devi was a benamidar of the appellant. The learned Judge speaking for the Bench has disposed of that contention holding thus:
It is well settled that the burden of showing that a particular transaction is banami and the owner is not the real owner always rests on the person asserting it to be so and this burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of that fact. The essence of benami is the intention of the parties and not unoften, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of the serious onus that rests on him nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises as a substitute for proof.
Equivalent Citation: AIR1993SC313, 1993CriLJ308, 1992(2)Crimes1197(SC), JT1992(4)SC436, 1992(2)SCALE120, (1992)4SCC45, 1992(2)UJ613
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 354 of 1990
Decided On: 17.02.1992
Appellants:M. Krishna Reddy
Vs.
Respondent: State Deupty Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S.R. Pandian and R.M. Sahai, JJ. 

Print Page

Whether offence under prevention of corruption Act is made out even though there is no proof of demand?


Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence Under Section 7. The above also will be conclusive in so far as the offence Under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 696 of 2014 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2085 of 2012)
Decided On: 28.03.2014
Appellants: B. Jayaraj
Vs.
Respondent: State of A.P.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
P. Sathasivam, C.J.I., Ranjan Gogoi and N.V. Ramana, JJ.

Print Page