Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Sec. 5(1) (c) and 5(1)(d) r/w Sec. 5(2) - Misappropriating Govt. Funds - Retaining Govt. Funds by a Govt. servant - Evidence Act. Sec. 154 - When can a witness be declared hostile Con evidence of a hostile witness be accepted-Evidence Act Sec. 105 - Onus of proving exceptions in I.P.C. on accused - Degree of proof Criminal Trial - Effect of non examination of material witness Conviction on evidence of a solitary witness Whether adverse inference can be drawn against accused for not leading evidence - Onus of prosecution - Presumption of innocence.

The appellant who was the Additional District Magistrate in overall charge of the Nizarat and the Land Acquisition sections of the Collectorate was charged for criminal misconduct under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(c) and 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The allegation against the appellant was that he withdrew a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 9-1-1955 on the ground that he wanted to distribute the said amount amongst the villagers whose land was acquired as the compensation; that in fact the appellant never wanted to distribute the said amount and that he retained the money with him for about 6 months dishonestly and only after that the money was deposited in the Treasury. The defence of the appellant was that the Secretary of the Works Department called a meeting in the Secretariat on 25-9-1964 and that the appellant was expressly directed to proceed to the spot and persuade the villagers to accept the compensation money; that it was pursuant to that mandate that the appellant withdrew the money on 9-1-1965; that he could not go to the village in question on that day because one of the officers who was to accompany him was not available, that he, therefore, again deposited the money back with the Nazir and collected the money from him again on 20-1-1975; that he went there along with several officials; that the villagers, however, refused to accept the compensation. The appellant was, however, hopeful of getting the compensation increased and to persuade the villagers to accept the increased compensation. He, therefore, on his return handed over the money to the Nazir, however, asked him not to deposit the same in the Treasury so that cash would be readily available as soon as needed.

Nazir was examined by the prosecution and he denied having received the money as suggested by the appellant. Secretary of the Works Department was not examined by the prosecution. The Land Acquisition Officer PW 8 deposed that the Secretary directed the appellant to take action for payment of the compensation money to the villagers and that the appellant should personally persuade the villagers to accept the compensation. The said witness was, however, declared hostile on the ground that he did not state to the Police that when the appellant and the Executive Engineer visited the village they did not persuade the villagers to receive the compensation amount. PW 7 the Executive Engineer deposed that he accompanied the appellant to the village and that the appellant tried to persuade the villagers to receive the compensation but that they refused to accept the same. This witness was also declared hostile because of certain minor omissions in his statement before the Police. PW 6, one of the villagers also deposed that the appellant persuaded them to give up possession but the villagers did not agree. This witness was also declared hostile because he omitted 10 state some facts before the Police.

The Trial Court and the High Court relying on the evidence of Nazir and certain documents convicted the appellant under section 5(1) (c) and 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1947. 

Allowing the appeal by Special Leave.