The State of Karnataka vs Chandrasha

20 – Illegal gratification – Presumption u/s. 20, if attracted – Prosecution case of demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the respondent-government servant from the complainant for encashment of the bill of Surrender leave salary pertaining to the complainant and three others of his school and recovery of the same from the possession of the respondent – Conviction of the respondent u/ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) – However, order of acquittal by the High Court – Correctness: Held: Prosecution initiated the proceedings against the respondent, after obtaining the sanction order from the competent authority – It can be safely infered that the respondent had received or accepted the currency notes on his own volition and the testimony of the prosecution witnesses including the testimony of the investigating officer would go to show the demand, acceptance and recovery of the bribe amount from the possession of the respondent and the prosecution proved the charges framed against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt – Said operation was preceded by recording of the demand in the tape recorder – In such circumstances, the respondent had to rebut the presumption by disproving the case of the prosecution either in the cross-examination of the prosecution side witnesses or by adducing material evidence that the receipt of Rs.2,000/- was not a bribe amount, but a legal fee or repayment of loan – However, he failed to do so and on the contrary, the prosecution proved the case beyond any doubt – Furthermore, first two limbs under sub sections (1) and (2) of s.13 make it clear that adequacy of consideration is irrelevant to draw the presumption – That apart, sub-section (3) only grants a discretion to Court to decline from drawing any presumption if the amount is so trivial so that such inference of corruption is not fairly possible in the facts of the case – Thus, not a rule but an exception available to the Court to exercise its discretionary power in the facts and circumstances of the case – On facts, no inclination to exercise such discretion – Judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the materials on record – Recovery of bribe amount from the respondent having been proved, explanation offered by the respondent in the absence of any concrete material, cannot be accepted – ‘Demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of the bribe amount having been established beyond doubt, no two views possible, thus the approach adopted by the High Court is perverse – Order passed by the High Court set aside and that of the trial court restored. [Paras 16, 19, 21-25]

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.20 – Presumption u/s.20, when attracted – Relevance of adequacy of consideration to draw the presumption:

Held: Reference to sub section (3) to s. 20 regarding the triviality of the gratification, the act sought or performed, and the amount demanded cannot be considered in isolation to each other – Value of gratification is to be considered in proportion to the act to be done or not done, to forbear or to not forebear, favour or disfavour sought, so as to be trivial to convince the Court, not to draw any presumption of corrupt practice – It is also not necessary that only if substantial amount is demanded, the presumption can be drawn – Overall circumstances and the evidence will also have to be looked into – s.20 would come into operation only when there is no nexus between the demand and the action performed or sought to be performed – But, when the fact of receipt of payment or an agreement to receive the gratification stands proved, there is a clear case of nexus or corroboration and the presumption itself is irrelevant – s.20 gets attracted when it is proved that the public servant has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification other than legal remuneration and, in that case, presumption is that it is the motive or reward for any of the acts covered u/ss.7, 11 or 13(1)(b) of the Act. [Para 23]

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7, s.13(1)(d) – Offence relating to public servant being bribed – Criminal misconduct by a public servant – Essential ingredients of ss.7 and 13(1)(d) – Elucidated. [Para 13]

Criminal Law – Appeal against acquittal – General Principles: Held: In an appeal against acquittal, if two views are possible and the court below has acquitted the accused, the appellate Court would not be justified in setting aside the acquittal merely because the other view is also possible. [Para 24]