Held: In the instant case the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings were duly proved by the prosecution by examining the concerned witnesses, who had duly supported the case of prosecution – Both the courts below have recorded the findings that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt the conscious acceptance of the tainted currency by the accused and also the recovery of tainted currency from the appellant – Therefore, the burden had shifted on the appellant to dispel the statutory presumption u/s. 20 of the said Act, and prove that it was not accepted as a motive or reward for the performance of his public duty, which the appellant had failed to dispel – The explanation offered by the appellant did not tally with the statement of the complainant recorded u/s. 164 of Cr.PC. – The High Court had also recorded that the defence taken by the appellant that the acceptance of tainted currency by him was towards the Audit fees of the Society was not proved by him in as much as there was nothing on record to show that the amount paid by the complainant to the appellant was out of the funds of the Society – Both the courts have appreciated the evidence on record threadbare in the right perspective and have found the appellant guilty for the offence u/s. 7 and s.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act – No need to interfere with the well considered findings recorded by both the courts below. [Paras 12 and 13] Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Death of the complainant or non-availability of the complainant at the time of trial – Consequences: Held: It is well settled proposition of law that the death of the complainant or non-availability of the complainant at the time of trial could not be said to be fatal to the case of prosecution, nor could it be said to be a ground to acquit the accused – It is always open for the prosecution to prove the contents of the complaint and other facts in issue by leading other oral or documentary evidence, in case of death of or non-availability of the complainant. [Para 9]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Raising of presumption u/s. 20:
Held: Once the undue advantage i.e., any gratification whatever, other than the legal remuneration is proved to have been accepted by the accused, the Court is entitled to raise the presumption u/s. 20 that he accepted the undue advantage as a motive or reward u/s. 7 for performing or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly – No doubt, such presumption is rebuttable. [Para 11]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC
731 – followed.
B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55: [2014] 4 SCR 554 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.