REGISTERED No.D. 221
The Gazette of India
EXTRAORDINARY
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 11] NEW DELHI, WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 1967/JYAISTHA 3, 1889
Separate paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation.
A bill further to amend the anti-corruption laws
BE it enacted by Parliament in the Eighteenth Year of the
Republic of India as follows:—
1. (1) This Act may be called the Anti-Corruption Laws
(Amendment) Act, 1967.
(2) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 5th day 5
Short title and com- mence merit of May, 1967.
2. (1) Notwithstanding—
2 of 1947.
10
40 of 1964.
(a) the substitution of 'new provisions for sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 1947-Act) by section 6(2) (c) of the Anti- Corruption Laws (Amendment) Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 1964-Act); and
Amend- ment of anti-cor- ruption law in relation to certain pending trials.
(185)
186 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY [PAHT II(b) any judgment or order of any court,
5 the said sub-section (3) as it stood immediately before the commence- ment of the 1964-Act, shall apply and shall be deemed always to have applied to and in relation to trials of offences punishable under sub-section (2) of section 5 of the 1947-Act pending before any court immediately before such commencement as if no such new provisions had been substituted for the said sub-section - (3).
10 (2) The accused person in any trial to arid in relation to which , sub-section (I) applies may, at the earliest opportunity available to him after the commencement of this Act, demand that the trial of the offence should proceed from the stage at which it waa immediately before the commencement of the 1964-Act and on any such demand being made the court shall proceed with the trial from that stage.
(3) For the removal of doubt it is hereby provided that any €ourt— "
15
(i) before which an appeal or application for revision against any judgment, order or sentence passed or made in any trial to which sub-section (1) applies is pending immediately before the commencement of this Act, or
so (ii) before which an appeal or application for revision against any judgment, order or sentence passed or made before the commencement of this Act in any such trial, Is filed after such commencement,
shall remand the case for trial in conformity with the provisions of this section,
25
3 Of 1967.
3. (I) The Anti-Corruption Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1967 Repeal and saving. is hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the said Ordinance shall be deemed to have been done or taken under this Act,
30
S"c. 2] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY 187STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
Under sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Prevention of Corrup- tion Act, 1947, as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Anti-Corruption Laws (Amendment) Act, 1964, In a trial for the offence of criminal misconduct i'n the discharge of official d-ty, on proof of the fact that the accused person or any other person on his behalf was in possession, without being able to satisfactorily account for the same, of pecuniary resources or property dispro- portionate to his known sources of income, a presumption would arise that the accused was guilty of the offence; and if the accused failed to rebut the presumption, the court could convict him on the strength of the presumption alone. By the 1964-Act afore-men- tioned the law on the subject was made more stringent; possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to one's known sources of income was made by itself a substantive offence and certain new provisions were substituted for the said sub-section (3). No saving provision was made in the amend;ng Act in respect of cases pending immediately before the commencement of that Act, as It was assumed that the presumption contained in the said sub- section would continue to apply to such cases by virtue of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. In Criminal Appeal 62-D of 1966, the Punjab High Court took a contrary view and held that the presumption was not saved. The non-availability of the presump- tion in respect of such pending cases might, In all probabillty) have resulted, In a number of such cases, in acquittal of the accused persons. Government, apart from becoming liable to pay compensa- tion or arrears of salary to officers under suspension, might have been forced to allow corrupt officers to go unpunished. Thus, it became urgently necessary to revive with retrospective effect the provisions relating to the presumption contained in the said section 5(3) in respect of cases so pending. The Anti-Corruption Laws (Amend- ment) Ordinance, 1967 was promulgated for this purpose. At the same time, to ensure fair trial to accused persons, the Ordinance provided for de novo trial of such pending cases from the stage which they reached immediately before the commencement of the amend- ing Act of 19641.
2. The Bill seeks to replace the Ordinance by an Act of Parlia- Bient.
NKW DELHI, Y. B. CHAVAN.
The nth May, 1967.
188 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY [PART II—S"c. 2]FINANCIAL MEMORANDUM
Clause 2 of the Bill provides for de novo trials of the cases affected by it from the stage at, which they were immediately before the commencement of the Anti-Corruption Laws (Amendment) Act. 1964. Where such case is at the trial stage, such de novo trial Is necessary only if the accused person makes a demand in that regard. In regard to cases in appeal the court before which the appeal is pending, or, as the case may be, is filed has to remand the case for such de novo trial. Having regard to the number of cases which may be affected by the clause, it will not be necessary to appoint any additional special judges for the trial of those cases. However, in respect of such cases some additional expenditure of a non-recurring nature may be involved from the Consolidated Fund of India, in connection with miscellaneous matters. While it is difficult to make a definite calculation of such additional expenditure (as that will depend inter alia upon the number of cases in which de novo trinl is demanded), it is estimated that such expenditure will be approxi- mately Rs. 10,000.
S. L. SHAKDHER,
Secretary.
CORRIGENDA
In the Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part II—Section 2—
1. No. 1, dated the 18th March, 1967: —
(i) Page 3, delete 'Bill No. 3 of 1967' appearing under the long title of the Bill;
(ii) Page 6, in the enacting formula, after 'of insert 'the'; and (id) Page 7 lme 20, read '1 of 1967-' as marginal reference.
2. No. 2, dated the 20th March, 1967 • —
Page 15, para 4 (second line) for 'relation to the income assessable for the assessment year 1968-69* read 'regard to commitments under the General Agreement on Tariffs'
3. No. 4, dated the 23rd March, 1967: —
Page 63, marginal heading to clause 1, for 'Short title, extent, ment and commence- application' read 'Short title, extent, commencement and application.'
4. No. 6, dated the 28th March, 1967: —
(i) Page 97, in the long title of the Bill, second line, for 'Concolidated' read 'Consolidated'; and
(ii) Page 102, line 20 from top, for 'Interestion Debt and Other Obligations' read 'Interest on Debt and Other Obligations'.