C. S. D. SW AMY versus THE STATE

C. S. D. SW AMY versus THE STATE

The Supreme Court held that the statutory presumption under s. 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, applies when an accused is found in possession of pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known sources of income and fails to satisfactorily account for such assets. Conviction for criminal misconduct under s. 5(1)(d) is justified by this presumption even if specific instances of bribery under s. 5(1)(a) are not proved, as the burden shifts to the accused to credibly explain the disproportionate assets.

Parties
Appellant: C. S. D. Swamy; Respondent: The State
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 May 1959
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appellate / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated April 11, 1957, of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 7 D of 1955, Arising Out of the Judgment and Order Dated January 19, 1955, of the Court of Special Judge, Delhi in Corruption Case No. 2 of 1953.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Prevention of Corruption, Presumption of Guilt, Criminal Misconduct in Public Offices, Burden of Proof
Criminal Law Anti Corruption Prevention of Corruption Presumption of Guilt Criminal Misconduct in Public Offices Burden of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C. S. D. Swamy

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appellate / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated April 11, 1957, of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 7 D of 1955, Arising Out of the Judgment and Order Dated January 19, 1955, of the Court of Special Judge, Delhi in Corruption Case No. 2 of 1953.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conviction under s. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 can be sustained on the statutory presumption under s. 5(3) when specific charges of bribery under s. 5(1)(a) fail for want of evidence.
  2. 2 What is the meaning and application of 'known sources of income' under s. 5(3) of the Act and the burden of proof placed on the accused.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the statutory presumption under s. 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, applies when an accused is found in possession of pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known sources of income and fails to satisfactorily account for such assets. Conviction for criminal misconduct under s. 5(1)(d) is justified by this presumption even if specific instances of bribery under s. 5(1)(a) are not proved, as the burden shifts to the accused to credibly explain the disproportionate assets.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The conviction and sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment passed by the learned Special Judge, Delhi, and affirmed by the High Court, are confirmed.
  • If the accused is on bail, he must surrender to his bail bond.