A on the record to show that the accus"d was in possession or came into possession of any pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income after the enactment of clause ( e) of sub-section ( 1) of section 5 of the Act by the Amending Act of 1964, his prosecution under that clause was "illegal inasmuch as the said sub-section of section 5 (I) could not be so interpreted as to app'Jy to the possession of the property and resources by the appellant beB fore it was enacted." The High Court examined the transactions in jaggery and sewing machines also, and held further that it could "not see how the said acts of the appellant constitute offences either under Secs. 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code or under Section 5(1)-(a),(b) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947." It therefore proceeded to examine the question whether the conviction of the accused for the offence under clause ( e.) of sub-section (I) c of section 5 r<md with sub-section (2) of that section cottld be Ufl" held in tbe face of tbe provisions of Article 20 of the Constitutioo, while doing so, it made a reference to its judgment in Ramanand Pundlik Kamat v. State(') where, in almos.t similar circumstances, it had taken the view that the prosecution was not maintainab'Je under that article. In that view of the matter, the High Court allowed the appeal by its judgment dated October 8, 1971, and acquitted the, acD cused altogether without examining the voluminous evidence which had been led by the prosecution to prove that he was in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.
