Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) – Illegal gratification – On facts, accused no. 1 demanded bribe from the complainant, trap arranged and tainted currency notes seized from accused no. 2 – Trial court held that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification proved by the prosecution by evidence of the complainant and prosecution witness as also presence of anthracene powder with the accused – Conviction of both the accused u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) and sentenced accordingly – High Court holding that there was no recovery from accused no. 1, acquitted the accused – On appeal, held: Since it is established that accused was possessing the bribe money, it was for them to explain that how the bribe money has been received by them and if he failed to offer any satisfactory explanation, it would be presumed that he has accepted bribe – Accused have not offered any explanation to rebut the presumption u/s. 20 – Evidence of the complainant that accused demanded bribe appears to be natural – When the findings recorded by the trial court is based upon appreciation of evidence, the High Court was not right in reversing the judgment of the trial court – Thus, the order passed by the High Court set aside.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is well-settled that to establish the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 particularly those relating to the trap cases, the prosecution has to establish the existence of demand as well as acceptance by the public servant. [Para 8] [334-B]
1.2 From the evidence of PW-1, demand by accused No.1 and accused No.2 is proved by the prosecution. The same is corroborated by the test of the ultra violet light showing the presence of anthracene powder on the shirt worn by accused No.2 and the right hand of accused No.1. Evidence of PW-1 is corroborated by the evidence of PW-3. The trial court recorded the findings that the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 is consistent and they are reliable witnesses. Upon appreciation of evidence, adduced by the prosecution, the trial court convicted accused Nos. 1 and 2. [Para 9] [335-A-C]
1.3 The High Court acquitted the accused on the ground that there was no recovery from accused No.1 and that the demand by the accused persons has not been established by the prosecution. The High Court took the view that accused No.2 had no idea for what purpose the money was given to accused No.1 by PW-1 and therefore, it cannot be said that accused No.2 had accepted the bribe amount upon demand to PW-1. The High Court was not right in brushing aside the evidence of PW-1 who has clearly stated that accused No.1 demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/- and the same was settled for Rs.500/- for expediting the matter for conversion of the plot for non-agricultural purpose. Recovery of the tainted currency notes from accused No.2 and the presence of anthracene powder in the right hand of accused No.1 and the pocket of the shirt of accused No.2 clearly show that they acted in tandem in the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount. When the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification has been proved by the evidence of PWs 1 and 3, the High Court was not right in holding that the demand and acceptance was not proved. [Para 10][335-C-F]
1.4 It is settled law that the presumption raised under Section 20 of the Act is a rebuttable presumption, and that the burden placed on the appellant for rebutting the presumption is one of preponderance of probabilities. Since it is established that the accused was possessing the bribe money, it was for them to explain that how the bribe money has been received by them and if he fails to offer any satisfactory explanation, it will be presumed that he has accepted the bribe. The accused have not offered any explanation to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. On the other hand, from the evidence of PW-1 that accused No.1 demanded the bribe appears to be natural. The application for approval of revised plan was earlier rejected. When the complainant and his advocate met TDO and on whose direction PW-1 has paid the requisite fine amount, the file has to necessarily move. It was at that point of time accused No.1 demanded bribe amount from PW-1. While appreciating the evidence, the High Court should have given proper weight to the views of the trial court as to the credibility of all evidence of PWs 1 and 3. When the findings recorded by the trial court is based upon appreciation of evidence, the High Court was not right in reversing the judgment of the trial court. Thus, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and conviction of accused No.1 and 2 under section 7 and section 13(1)(d) of the Act, is affirmed. [Paras 11, 12, 14] [335-G-H; 336-C-F, H; 337-A]
1.5 So far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned for conviction under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, the trial court imposed sentence of imprisonment of two years upon each of the accused. The occurrence was of the year 1991 that is about 27 years ago. Considering the passage of time, it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment of two years to the statutory minimum imprisonment of one year. [Para 13] [336-F-H] B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. (2014) 13 SCC 55 : [2014] 4 SCR 554 ; C.M. Girish Babu v. C.B.I. Cochin, High Court of Kerala (2009) 3 SCC 779 : [2009] 2 SCR 1021 – referred to.
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.