Judgment Intelligence
Acquittal Set Aside- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 31 March 2004
- Bench
- Justices Doraiswamy Raju and Arijit Pasayat
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2), 19(1)(c), 20(1); Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 4, 114; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 — Section 4(1)
The appeals were allowed to the extent indicated: the acquittal was set aside and the conviction restored, with the sentence reduced to one year's imprisonment for each proved offence and the Trial Court's fine and default term; the accused were directed to surrender to serve the remainder of the sentence, if any (paras 28-30).
Key holdings
- The presumption under Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a legal, compulsory presumption that arises once acceptance or agreement to accept gratification is proved (paras 13-14).
- Acceptance of gratification need not be proved by direct evidence; circumstantial evidence and inferences under Section 114 of the Evidence Act suffice (paras 14, 18-21).
- A presumption can be drawn only from facts, not from another presumption, unless there is a statutory compulsion (para 18).
- Whether the public servant had authority to do the act for which the bribe was taken is of no consequence (para 27).
- An appellate court should not make out a new factual case that was never pleaded below (para 27).
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
Precedents Relied Upon
- M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P. (2001) 1 SCC 691
The only condition for the legal presumption under Section 20 is proof that the accused accepted or agreed to accept gratification; it need not be proved by direct evidence.
- Hawkins v. Powells Tillery Steam Coal Co. Ltd. (1911) 1 KB 988
Proof does not mean rigid mathematical demonstration but such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to come to a particular conclusion.
- Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra (1998) 7 SCC 337
A presumption can be drawn only from facts, not from other presumptions.
View all precedents (12)
- Raghubir Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 4 SCC 560
Possession of the marked currency notes by an accused alleged to have demanded and received the amount is res ipsa loquitur.
- Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1980) 2 SCC 390
Passing of money need not be proved by direct evidence; it may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
- Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 571
Once payment or acceptance of gratification is established, the inference is that it was accepted as motive or reward; "gratification" means any payment for giving satisfaction to the public servant.
- Mohmoodkhan Mahboobkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra (1997) 10 SCC 600
The word "gratification" in Section 4(1) of the 1947 Act takes its literal meaning of giving pleasure or satisfaction.
- State of Assam v. Krishna Rao (1973) 3 SCC 227
Concept of gratification and the presumption under Section 4 of the 1947 Act, which arises on proof of receipt of money other than legal remuneration.
- C.I. Emden v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1960 SC 548
If money is received and no convincing, credible and acceptable explanation is offered, the presumption under Section 4 of the 1947 Act is available.
- V.D. Jhangan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1966) 3 SCR 736
If money is received and no convincing, credible and acceptable explanation is offered, the presumption under Section 4 of the 1947 Act is available.
- State of Andhra Pradesh v. V. Vasudev Rao JT 2003 (9) SC 119
Recent decision highlighting the presumption on receipt of money.
- Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel v. State of Gujarat (1976) 3 SCC 46
Whether a person has authority to do the act for which the bribe is accepted is of no consequence.
