JUDGMENT S.N. Sahai, J. - The Appellant Surajpal Singh appeals against his conviction and sentence of four years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 9,000/- ; in default of payment of fine to undergo further R. I. for one year, for an offence punishable u/s 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The Appellant Surajpal Singh was employed in police department of the U. P. Government between 27-2-1951 and 9-9-1952 at Sadar Malkhana, Kanpur. The charge against him was that in that capacity he committed the offence of criminal misconduct as defined in S. 5 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and further that he dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated or otherwise converted to his own use a number of Articles which were entrusted to him or were under his control as a public servant, and also that Rs. 9,284/1/- , disproportionate to his known sources of income, having been recovered from his possession between 9 and 10-9-1952, he had thereby committed an offence of criminal mis-conduct punishable u/s 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. As it was alleged that the above acts were done by the Appellant in conspiracy with Bhagwat Singh and Gulab Singh a charge u/s 120B, I. P. C. was also framed against him. There was another charge against the Appellant u/s 465 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The house of the Appellant was searched on 9-9-1952 at 9-30 p.m. by Mazharul Haq, sud-inspector along with Udaibir Singh, station officer, Colonelganj police station, other police constables, head constables and police officers, in the presence of Basdeo Prasad and Rama Shanker Misra. Among the articles recovered was one Potli which on being opened was found to contain a sum of Rs. 9,284/1/- in notes and coins. 4. Bhagawat Singh and Gulab Singh were acquitted of all the charges against them. The Appellant was also acquitted of all the charges except the charge u/s 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which was based on the ground that he had failed to account satisfactorily for the possession of Rs. 9,284/- which was disproportionate to his known sources of income. The Appellant was also acquitted of all the charges except the charge u/s 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which was based on the ground that he had failed to account satisfactorily for the possession of Rs. 9,284/- which was disproportionate to his known sources of income. The only part of the prosecution case with which we are now concerned, therefore, is whether the Appellant committed the offence of criminal misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a public servant within the meaning of the expression used in S. 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The contention of the prosecution is that even if individual acts of corruption have not been proved because the Appellant was found in possession of a sum of Rs. 9,284/1/- which was disproportionate to his known sources of income a necessary inference is to be drawn U/Sub.S. (3) of S. 5 of the Act to the effect that he is guilty of criminal misconduct in the discharge of his official duties. The main question which thus arises for decision is whether this sum of Rs. 9,284-1-0 was actually recovered from the possession of the Appellant and whether it was disproportion-ate to his sources of income. If these questions are answered in the affirmative, the prosecution is entitled to a presumption U/Sub.S. (3) of S. 5 about the guilt of the Appellant. If either of these questions is answered in the negative the presumption cannot be drawn and the charge cannot be held to be established. 5. Surajpal Singh Appellant started his life as a constable on 1-8-1930 in the UP Police on a salary of Rs. 13 p.m. His pay was increased to Rs. 30 p.m. on 1-7-1946. When he was made a head constable on 1-4-1947, his pay was increased to Rs. 50 p.m. He officiated as a sub-inspector from 1-6-1948 to 1-3-1949 and during that period he got Rs. 150 p m. as his salary. After the reversion to the post of head constable on 1 -3-1949, he drew a salary of Rs. 50 p.m. till he was suspended on 10-9-1952. 6. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. On a question put by the court whether Rs. 9,284-1-0 were recovered from his possession from the box kept in his house, the same being beyond his means, he answered as follows: Yes But from two places. Rs. 50 p.m. till he was suspended on 10-9-1952. 6. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. On a question put by the court whether Rs. 9,284-1-0 were recovered from his possession from the box kept in his house, the same being beyond his means, he answered as follows: Yes But from two places. Rs. 5,000 were recovered from the box of my sister and the rest of the money was recovered from my box. Rs. 5,000 recovered from the box of my sister belonged to her. She was living with me in connection with her treatment as she was ill. Rs. 4,284-1-0 comprised of the money saved by me from my earnings and that given to me by my parents who are now dead. He produced some evidence in support of the pleas taken by him. In his statement he did not specify what portion of Rs. 4284-1-0 was his personal income and what he had received from his father. But it is clear from the admitted facts and the evidence of Bhola Nath, Assistant Accountant of Police Office, that he could never save any substantial amount out of the meagre pay that he started with and the salary he used to get during his career in the Police department. The explanation given by him was therefore highly unsatisfactory. 7. Smt. Ram Dulari, the sister of the Appellant, has beeh examined in this case. She stated that she had come there for treatment and had brought Rs. 5,000 with her which Surajpal Singh took from her and kept in a box beneath the bed. The reason for bringing this substantial amount of money was that she apprehended that, in her absence it might be stolen. It is difficult to believe that when her husband and other members of his family were already there at her husband's house she would have brought this large sum of money to her brother's place for reasons of safety, She admitted in her evidence that she possessed ornaments worth Rs. 2,000 but she had not brought them. One would normally expect that if she had brought cash for safety to her brother's place she would have brought ornaments also. It is also doubtful whether Brahma, the husband of Smt. Ram Dulari, was a person who could have in his possession Rs. 5,000 cash in his house. 2,000 but she had not brought them. One would normally expect that if she had brought cash for safety to her brother's place she would have brought ornaments also. It is also doubtful whether Brahma, the husband of Smt. Ram Dulari, was a person who could have in his possession Rs. 5,000 cash in his house. According to the evidence produced in support of his status, it transpires that he was an ordinary cultivator with two pairs of bullocks and about 50 or 60 bighas of land under his cultivation. Sheo Shanker, who is the witness on this point, further stated that Brahma did money lending business also. But he admitted that he had never taken any money on loan from him. The evidence of this witness that his (Brahma's) status was of Rs. 10,000 or Rs. 15,000 is falsified by the fact that he neither paid District Board tax nor any other tax. Raj Kumar, another witness, also tried to corroborate the testimony of Sheo Shankar. In my opinion the evidence of both these witnesses is not of such a character that can be safely relied upon. It appears that they came to help Surajpal Singh who had taken Dasti Summons for them. The evidence of the other defence witnesses that Rs. 5,000 were recovered by the police from the box of Smt. Ram Dulari and were taken possession of by them in spite of the protests of Ram Dulari is also not worthy of reliance. 8. There is specific evidence that the entire sum of Rs. 9,284-1-0 was in a Potli which was kept in a box with other articles. The evidence of the police officers and the search witnesses on this point is definite that the entire sum was recovered from a box which was in exclusive possession of the Appellant and I see no reason not to accept their testimony. If the entire amount was found in one Potli then a further question arises that why the entire amount of Smt. Ram Dulari was put in together with that which, according to the Appellant, was part of his saving and partly received from his father. This too is a circumstance against the plea of the Appellant that Rs, 5,000 out of this sum belonged to his sister. In my opinion the Appellant has completely failed to prove that Rs. 5,000 out of the sum of Rs. This too is a circumstance against the plea of the Appellant that Rs, 5,000 out of this sum belonged to his sister. In my opinion the Appellant has completely failed to prove that Rs. 5,000 out of the sum of Rs. 9,234-1-0 belonged to his sister. 9. So far as the balance of the amount i.e. Rs. 4.284-1-0 is concerned, the Appellant, when examined did not specify as to what portion of the amount had been received by him from his father. Evidence was produced by him to show that his father, who was a retired Havaldar, received a small pension and after his retirement he was keeping a Parchoon shop, gave a sum of Rs. 2,500 to him and another sum of Rs. 2,000 and his shop to his other son. It is stated that this sum was given to Surajpal Singh about 35 years back. It has been rightly pointed out by the learned Special Judge that it is difficult to believe that the money received 35 years back would be kept in a Potli at the date of recovery. The witnesses produced on this point on behalf of the Appellant were Man Singh and Ramadhin. It is not clear from their evidence what was the amount of pension that the father of the Appellant was getting. If he was keeping only a Parchoon shop it is highly improbable that he would have amassed a sum of more than five thousand rupees which he is alleged to have divided among his two sons 35 years back. If the Appellant had received Rs. 2,500 thirty five years back, one would expect that it would be put in some bank or would be invested somewhere and not kept in a Potli. The very fact that the amount was not invested or put in a bank and was kept in a Potli indicates that the Appellant did not want any one to know about it as he had got it by undesirable means. In my opinion the possession of Rs. 9,284-1-0 has not been satisfactorily explained by the Appellant and obviously the amount was disproportionate to the known sources of his income. 10. In my opinion the possession of Rs. 9,284-1-0 has not been satisfactorily explained by the Appellant and obviously the amount was disproportionate to the known sources of his income. 10. That being so, Sub-section (3) of S. 5 becomes applicable and the prosecution is entitled to contend that the Appellant is guilty of criminal misconduct in the discharge of his duties punishable u/s 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 11. It was, however, contended on behalf of the Appellant that S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is hit by Article 20 (1) of the Constitution of India and is, on that account, ultra vires. No conviction can, therefore, be recorded under it. The argument is that u/Art. 20 (1) of the Constitution: No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. It was on 9-9-1952 that the Appellant was found in possession of the sum of Rs. 9,284-1-0. He may very well have acquired the money before the coming into force of the Constitution at that time but such an acquisition was not punishable in any manner and Sub-section (3) of S. 5 did not exist The Sub-section having been enacted later on after the coming into force of the Constitution could not, in view of Article 20 (1) of the Constitution make the acquisition of the amount punishable if it was not punishable earlier. 12. The contention cannot, however, stand scrutiny. In the first place it assumes that the sum of Rs. 9,284-1-0 in question had been acquired by the Appellant before coming into force of the Constitution or before 1947. This assumption appears to be entirely unjustified. The Appellant did try to prove that a part of the money had been given to him by his father thirtyfive years earlier. But as has already been shown, this part of his case cannot be accepted as true. In respect of the rest of the money he never set up the case that he had acquired it earlier. The only thing he pleaded was that it did not belong to him at all and belonged to his sister. But as has already been shown, this part of his case cannot be accepted as true. In respect of the rest of the money he never set up the case that he had acquired it earlier. The only thing he pleaded was that it did not belong to him at all and belonged to his sister. This plea of his has already been found to be false. There is, therefore, nothing on the basis of which it can be said that the amount was acquired by the Appellant before the coming into force of the Constitution or before 1947. Then it is also overlooked that the conduct which is described in Cls. (A) to (D) of Sub-section (1) of S. 5 and for which punishment is provided in Sub-section (2) of that section have always been considered to be criminal and punishable. Learned Counsel has not been able to point out any point of time when such conduct was not considered an offence. It cannot, therefore, be said that Sub-section (2) of S. 5 makes some act punishable which was not punishable at the time when it was committed. 13. Lastly, it has to be remembered that Sub-section (3) of S. 5 only lays down a rule of evidence and does not create any substantive offence by itself. The offence is defined in Sub-section (1) and is made punishable by Sub-section (2). Sub-section (3) only provides that in certain circumstances on some facts being proved, unless the contrary was shown, the court should presume that the accussed person was guilty of the offence mentioned in Sub-section (1). In respect of such a rule of evidence there can be no question of its being hit by Article 20(1) of the Constitution. A rule of evidence can be enacted at any time. I, therefore, find no force in the contention that Sub-section (2) of S. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is ultra vires because it contravenes Article 20(1) of the Constitution. No other point was pressed. 14. In the end Learned Counsel for the Appellant has strenuously urged that the sentence erred on the side of severity and that it should be substantially reduced. No other point was pressed. 14. In the end Learned Counsel for the Appellant has strenuously urged that the sentence erred on the side of severity and that it should be substantially reduced. He has urged that the Appellant, who had been in police service for about twenty years, will, by this conviction, not only lose his job but will also lose the entire benefit of pension also and his career for all time to come will stand ruined. In my opinion, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, the ends of justice will be met by reducing the substantive sentence of four years' R. I. to two years' R. I. The sentence of fine or imprisonment in default of its payment was an appropriate one. 15. I accordingly allow this appeal in part. While maintaining the conviction of the Appellant for an offence u/s 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, I reduce the substantive sentence of your years' R. I. to two years' R. I. but maintain the sentence of fine or imprisonment in default of its payment. 16. The Appellant is on bail. He shall surrender forthwith in order to serve out the rest of his sentence.