Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manohar Lal vs State Of Raj on 9 September, 2022
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 669/2000
Manohar Lal
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Raj.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chaitanya Gehlot a/w Mr. Bhawani
Singh & Mr. Amit Kumar Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, P.P.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment Reserved on 02/09/2022 Pronounced on 09/09/2022
1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the accused appellant may be acquitted of all the charges levelled against him."
2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction, dated 17.11.2000, passed by the Sessions Court (Prevention of Corruption Cases) whereby the appellant was found guilty for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of which he was to further undergo 3 months R.I. (Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 09:33:02 PM) (2 of 19) [CRLA-669/2000]
3. The sentence awarded to the appellant was suspended by this Court, vide order dated 23.11.2000 in S.B Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 458/2000.
4. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the record are that on 24.07.1997, complainant Munshiram S/o Bahadurchand Arora R/o Sri Ganganagar lodged a written report at the A.C.B. Sri Ganganagar, stating therein that he had sought a copy (nakal) of a particular land record (jamabandi), for which he approached the Halka Patwari, being the present appellant, to which it was alleged that the present appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 100/-. And that the complainant approached the concerned authorities; upon which, motbir witnesses were arranged and in the presence of the complainant and the motbirs, phenolphtalein powder was smeared on the two currency notes of Rs. 50 each and the notes were accordingly marked, subsequently the trap proceedings were carried out; wherein upon the signal of the complainant, the appellant was apprehended by the concerned A.C.B. officials finding that the said tainted currency was recovered from the appellant's house, from a table, kept under his eye-glasses. And that, subsequently, he was charged for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. And that, upon trial, the learned Court below, vide the impugned judgment, found the appellant guilty for the offences under the aforesaid sections of the Act of 1988.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Court below has gravely erred in passing the impugned judgment (Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 09:33:02 PM) (3 of 19) [CRLA-669/2000] of conviction against the appellant. It is submitted that for an offence to be made out under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, demand of an illegal gratification coupled with the subsequently recovery of the same has to be proven against the accused. And that, both the said statutory requirements are absent in the present case.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has failed to produce the tape recording of the trap proceedings before the learned Court below, despite the fact that it was used in the trap proceedings and the same was sealed and placed in the maalkhana, of which a fard was also prepared, and yet it was not brought on the record. And that, the learned Court below ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the prosecution for withholding the same. And that, the learned Court below has thus incorrectly found that a demand for illegal gratification of Rs. 100/- was made by the appellant.
7. Learned counsel also submitted that the factum of recovery of the alleged currency notes from the residence of the appellant is also without basis, as the appellant was not caught red-handed. And that, while the appellant had gone into another room on the day of the trap proceedings, upon finding that the pen he was using, had run out of ink and required a 'refill'. And that, the currency notes were recovered from the table, under his eye- glasses, which the appellant had, of his own volition, kept the money.
8. Learned counsel further submitted that it is an attempt to falsely implicate the appellant because he was not cooperating (Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 09:33:02 PM) (4 of 19) [CRLA-669/2000] with the requests of the complainant, regarding providing him with a copy of the jamabandi.
9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, and submitted that the learned Court below has taken into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and the evidences placed on record before it in passing the impugned judgment of conviction against the present appellant.
10. Learned Public Prosecutor drew the attention of this Court to the F.S.L. report, as rightly dealt with by the learned Court below, wherein it was shown that upon being apprehended during the trap proceedings, the hands of the accused-appellant were tested, and they revealed a light pinkish hue as a clear result of having come into contact with the currency notes smeared with the phenolphthalein powder, and therefore it was the accused- appellant himself who received the illegal gratification from the complainant, and placed it on the table.
11. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly found that there is sufficient evidence in the form of testimony of witnesses, which reveals that a demand for the illegal gratification was made by the accused-appellant. And the mere fact that the tape recording was not submitted into evidence cannot be a valid reason to overturn the conviction, especially when the learned Court below has categorically dealt with the same, and held that the demand for the illegal gratification was sufficiently proven.
(Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 09:33:02 PM)
(5 of 19) [CRLA-669/2000]
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.
13. At the outset, this Court thinks it necessary and fit to keep into consideration the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, with regard to the gravity and seriousness of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the catastrophic effect that such offences, if left unchecked, have on a democratic society, in State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Ram Singh (2000) 5 SCC
88. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
"Corruption in a civilised society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time is sure to malignancies the polity of country leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been termed as Royal thievery. The socio-political system exposed to such a dreaded communicable disease is likely to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti people, but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence shaking of the socio-economic political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society."
14. Before delving into the case at hand, the relevant Sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as it stood then) applicable in the present case, are reproduced below for the sake of brevity:-
"7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official Act (Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 09:33:02 PM) (6 of 19) [CRLA-669/2000] Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than 1[three years] but which may extend to 2[seven years] and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--
(a) "Expecting to be a public servant." If a person not expecting to be in office obtains a gratification by deceiving others into a belief that he is about to be in office, and that he will when serve them, be may be guilty of cheating, but he is not guilty of the offence defined in this section.
(b) "Gratification." The word "gratification" is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money.
(c) "Legal remuneration." The words "legal remuneration"
are not restricted to remuneration which a public servant can lawfully demand, but include all remuneration which he is permitted by the Government or the organisation, which he serves, to accept.
(d) "A motive or reward for doing." A person who receives a gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or is not in a position to do, or has not done, comes within this expression.
(e) Where a public servant induces a person erroneously to believe that his influence with the Government has obtained a title for that person and thus induces that person to give the public servant, money or any other (Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 09:33:02 PM) (7 of 19) [CRLA-669/2000] gratification as a reward for this service, the public servant has committed an offence under this section"
13. Criminal, misconduct by a public servant (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, --
(a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as active or reward such as is mentioned in section 7; or
(b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceedings or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or
(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or
(d) if he,--
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public, interest; or
(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot (Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 09:33:02 PM) (8 of 19) [CRLA-669/2000] satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "known sources of income" means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than 1[four years] but which may extend to 2[ten years] and shall also be liable to fine."
20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration (1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) or sub- section (1) of section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. (2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under section 12 or under clause (b) of section 14, it is proved that any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7, or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the court may decline to draw the presumption (Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 09:33:02 PM) (9 of 19) [CRLA-669/2000] referred to in either of the said sub-sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no interference of corruption may fairly be drawn."
15. This Court observes that, for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 sub-section (1) (d) read with Section 13 sub-section (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to be made out against the accused, it is necessary that; the twin ingredients of a demand of illegal gratification / bribe of remuneration; or any valuable thing, either without consideration or a consideration which is known to be inadequate by the accused; or for a pecuniary advantage, for himself or another, made by the accused or by another on his behalf, coupled with a recovery of the said illegal gratification from the accused, or from someone who has accepted the same on his behalf; or if he has dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant, must be proven by the prosecution as per the facts and circumstances of each case.
16. It is a settled position of law that any allegation under the aforementioned sections against an accused, if sans a demand for any kind of illegal gratification, (hereinafter referred to as 'Demand') or a recovery of the same (hereinafter referred to as 'Recovery'), as discussed above, would result in a failure of the prosecution to prove its case, beyond all reasonable doubt.
17. However, in case a Demand and a Recovery have been proven before the competent Court by placing the evidence on record, which may include, but not be limited to; audio and/or video recording of trap proceedings, transcript of telephonic conversation between complainant and accused, chemical testing (Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 09:33:02 PM) (10 of 19) [CRLA-669/2000] of the currency notes and the clothes and/or person of the accused, or his conduit, by phenolphthalein powder or anthracene powder, testimonies of complainant and/or investigating officer/shadow witness and/or trap/panch/motbir witness and/or other witnesses, and whether any of the witnesses have turned hostile; the accused may rebut the same, to the satisfaction of the competent Court and averting to the facts of the case, by providing a justification / explanation to such demand.
18. This Court further observes, as is clear from the legislative intention crystallised in the provision of law under Section 20 of the Act of 1988, that in case a demand for illegal gratification has been proved, then 'it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved' i.e. it is rebuttable at the instance of the accused if he is able to justify / explain the purpose for the said demand so made, and substantiate the same with cogent and clear evidence, to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
19. The same has been reinforced, time and again, by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as is evident from the judgment rendered in B. Noha Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. (2006) 12 SCC 277, wherein, while referencing the ratio decidendi laid down in the earlier decision of State of A.P. v. Kommaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy (2000) 9 SCC 752 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed the following:-
"...that when amount is found to have been passed to the public servant the burden is on public servant to establish that it was not by way of illegal gratification."
20. Therefore, when it appears that an amount, which may appear to be a Demand made by an accused, has been passed to (Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 09:33:02 PM) (11 of 19) [CRLA-669/2000] the accused, then a presumption under Section 20 of the Act of 1988 is made against the accused, and the burden of proof of rebutting the same then lies on the shoulders of the accused.
21. Furthermore, in Guruviah & Ors. Vs. The State (2019) 8 SCC 396 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court referenced the ratio decidendi laid down earlier in T. Shankar Prasad v. State of A.P. (2004) 3 SCC 753 and also took into consideration, that although a justification / explanation was given by the accused, it was not offered immediately after the recovery of money but at a belated stage, which called into question the authenticity of the same.
Relevant portion of T. Shankar (supra) is reproduced below:-
"The involvement of both of the them a well-planned and cleverly managed device to systematically collect money stood sufficiently established on the evidence let in by the prosecution. Further, A-2 did not offer his explanation immediately after the recovery of money. A similar plea of receiving money as advance tax was rejected and affirmed by this Court in A. Abdul Kaffar v. State of Kerala."
22. This Court is also conscious of the following judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court:-
22.1 State of Gujarat Vs. Bhalchandra Laxmishankar Dave (2021) 2 SCC 735 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with a case wherein the High Court had set aside the order of conviction passed by the Court below and acquitted the accused therein, made the following observations:-
"We have gone through the detailed judgment and order of conviction passed by the Learned Trial Court and also the evidence on record laid down by the prosecution as well as the defence. We have perused the impugned judgment and order (Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 09:33:02 PM) (12 of 19) [CRLA-669/2000] of acquittal passed by the High Court to ascertain whether the High Court has conformed to the principles while exercising in the criminal appeal against the judgment and order of conviction. We find that the High Court has not strictly proceeded in the manner in which High Court ought to have while dealing with the appeal against the order of conviction. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court, we find that, as such, there is no re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record in detail while acquitting the Respondent - Accused. The High Court has only made general observations on the depositions of the witnesses examined.
The High Court ought to have appreciated that it was dealing with the first appeal against the order of conviction passed by the Learned trial Court. Being First Appellate Court, the High Court was required to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record and also the reasoning given by the Learned trial Court while convicting the Accused. Being the First Appellate Court the High Court ought to have reappreciated the entire evidence on record without any limitation, which might be there while dealing with an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Learned Trial Court.
Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court acquitting the Respondent - Accused without adverting to the reasons given by the Learned trial Court while convicting the Accused and without reappreciating the entire evidence on record in detail cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside."
22.2 State of U.P. Vs. Ram Asrey 1990 Supp (1) SCC 12 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"The appellate Court has given the following reasons for allowing the appeal of the respondent, they being:
1) There is no corroboration of the testimony of the complainant, Ambar Prasad regarding the demand of bribe by the respondent on 27.10.79.(Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 09:33:02 PM)
(13 of 19) [CRLA-669/2000]
2) The evidence adduced by the prosecution that even on 5.11.79, the respondent demanded the bribe from Ambar Prasad in the presence of other persons without taking any precaution is not convincing.
3) There is no acceptable reason as to why Ambar Prasad who had promised to give the bribe money on 8.11.79 came even on 5.11.79 with the vigilance party.
4) Though Ambar Prasad agreed to pay Rs. 15/-, he paid only Rs. 10/-.
5) The application said to have been presented by Ambar Prasad is not found.
6) No evidence whatsoever was produced to show that Ambar Prasad required a backward class certificate for getting the scholarship in the month of November.
The sum and substance of the above reasonings go to show that there is no acceptable and clinging evidence proving that there was a demand of bribe and that the respondent accepted the amount in question as a motive or reward for doing an official act or showing a favour to Ambar Prasad in expertise of his official function.
On going through the impugned judgment of the High Court, we are of the view that the facts and circumstances of this case do not warrant interference.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed"
22.3 Ayyasami Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1992) 1 SCC 304 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court made the following observations:-
"The High Court found that the witnesses who were associated in the conduct of the raid for recovery of tainted money from the appellant could not be termed as independent who could be associated with such raids. The High Court further expressed doubt about veracity of the witness who claimed that money was actually handed over in his presence. The High Court, however, drew an adverse inference against the appellant from the circumstance that the, bill which was delayed for unreasonable period had suddenly been passed by the appellant On an overall assessment the High Court entertained some suspicion about the credibility of the prosecution witnesses but at the same time did not find the suspicion to be strong enough to raise doubt about the (Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 09:33:02 PM) (14 of 19) [CRLA-669/2000] guilt of the appellant. We agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant that in the face of the finding that the witnesses who formed part of the raiding party were not independent and the evidence regarding handing over money to the appellant being unbelievable, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. The guilt of the appellant has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and as such the benefit must go to him."
22.4 Meena Vs. The State of Maharashtra (2000) 5 SCC 21 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court made the following observations:-
"Law has always favoured the presence and importance of a shadow witness in the trap party, not only to facilitate such witness to see but also overhear what happens and how it happens also.
The other person, who was present at the place of occurrence though cited initially as witness, was not examined by the prosecution but later was got examined as DW-1 and evidence of this person completely belies the prosecution story. The corroboration essential in a case like this for what actually transpired at the time of the alleged occurrence and acceptance of bribe is very much wanting in this case. Even the other panch witness, PW-5, categorically admitted that even as the Inspector of Police, PW-6, arrived, the appellant gave the same version that PW-1 tried to force into her hands the currency note which she turned down by pushing it away, and his evidence also does not lend credibility to the case of the prosecution. It is an obligation of judicial conscience to correct errors, where the same are manifest. The judgments of the courts below suffer from serious infirmities and manifest errors on account of unwarranted inferences liberally drawn by the courts below against the appellant, overlooking the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence of an accused till the charge leveled and his guilt is established beyond all reasonable doubt. The courts below have failed to consider the adverse impact on the prosecution case from the evidence of PW-2 and the withholding of the lady constable and Jagdish Bokade, two material witnesses.
(Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 09:33:02 PM)
(15 of 19) [CRLA-669/2000] The materials on record in this case are not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the appellant. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside and the fine, if any, paid shall be refunded to the appellant."
22.5 Seema Silk and Sarees and Ors. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and Ors. (2008) 5 SCC 580 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, with regard to presumption made against the accused, made the following observations:-
"The presumption raised against the trader is a rebuttable one. Reverse burden as also statutory presumptions can be raised in several statutes as, for example, the Negotiable Instruments Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, TADA, etc. Presumption is raised only when certain foundational facts are established by the prosecution. The accused in such an event would be entitled to show that he has not violated the provisions of the Act. "
22.6 Hari Rudra Bhavan Vs. The State of Rajasthan R.L.W. 1982 Raj 676 decided on 12.03.1982 wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court, after analyzing the testimonies of witnesses, observed as under:-
"The prosecution could not succeed in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant demanded or accepted illegal gratification from Mangat Singh for payment of interest on his Jagir bonds. In the absence of any trust-worthy evidence from the side of the prosecution relating to demand and acceptance of bribe I am unable to up-hold the convictions and sentences of the appellant under Sec. 161, I.P.C. and Sec. 5(2) read with Sec. 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act."
22.7 Ulfat Rai Arya Vs. State of Rajasthan 2007 CriLJ 1846 decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 07.12.2006, wherein the following observations were made:- (Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 09:33:02 PM)
(16 of 19) [CRLA-669/2000] "A plain reading of the above provision makes it clear that when the accused accepted the gratification, the presumption immediately comes into play that he accepted it as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 161, IPC. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of T. Shankar Prasad's case, (2004 Cri LJ 884) (supra) held that it has to be presumed that the accused accepted the gratification as a motive or reward for doing or for bearing to do any official act etc. if the condition envisaged in the former part of the section is satisfied. The only condition for drawing such a legal presumption under Section 4 of the Act is that during trial it should be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. In M. Narsinga Rao's case (supra) it was held that where the receipt of gratification was proved, the Court was under a legal obligation to presume that such gratification was accepted as a reward for doing the public duty. In Gulam Mahmood A. Malek's case 1980CriLJ1096 (supra) it was held that while appreciating the evidence the background of the case should not be lost sight of it was also laid down that past conduct of the complainant should not be ignored. In Suraj Mai's case (supra) it has been observed that in a case of bribery, mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. In Kesaram's case (supra) it has been held that when accused at the earliest disclosed the fact of receiving Rs. 100/- against the money due in the brother of the complainant and the defence version has been supported by the prosecution witnesses, the appellant has succeeded in probising the defence. In Duraisami's case (supra), it was held that when the explanation given by the accused is found to be true and genuine then case set up by the defence has to be accepted."
23. At the cost of repetition, this Court deems it proper to summarize the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned precedent laws in the following manner:-
23.1 For offences under the Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act of 1988, it is fundamental that a Demand and Recovery of the same is proven against the accused.(Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 09:33:02 PM)
(17 of 19) [CRLA-669/2000] 23.2 The presumption under Section 20 of the Act of 1988, operates against the accused, once certain foundational facts have been established by the prosecution for the same, and the burden of proof to rebut the same is upon the accused, and the presumption stands unless he rebuts the same to the satisfaction of the competent Court. The stage at which such rebuttal is made, if through an explanation/justification, is also taken into consideration by the competent Court.
23.3 The guilt of the accused must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt, as is a fundamental and basic principle of criminal jurisprudence.
24. Now adverting to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court makes the following observations:-
24.1 The accused-appellant had a motive to demand illegal gratification of Rs. 100/- from the complainant, owing to the fact that the complainant had sought a copy of a jamabandi of a certain plot of land.
24.2 The accused-appellant when apprehended on the spot, during the trap proceedings, by the concerned officials, did not have any explanation or justification at the time. And that, at a subsequent stage, in his statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he stated that he is being falsely implicated as he refused to assist the complainant in filing a report against one Chandrabhan. The accused-appellant was silent, when asked about the illegal gratification at the first instance and offered no explanation for the same, at the time for the source of the money. The explanation so offered by the accused, was offered at belated stage, and could (Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 09:33:02 PM) (18 of 19) [CRLA-669/2000] not be corroborated by him through any evidence. However, no evidence was placed on the record before the learned Court below to that effect, to substantiate any such claim. 24.3 Witness testimony, including the complainant, the motbir witnesses and the concerned officers in the trap party, reveal that when the accused-appellant was apprehended on the spot, he did not offer any explanation, and was silent and stunned. 24.4 The above testimonies also reveal that the amount was kept in the pocket of the accused-appellant by a motbir witness, after which they washed their hands. The testimony of the complainant, Munshiram would further reveal that he gave the tainted currency to the accused-appellant, who then kept it on the table. There is no discrepancy in the statements of the witnesses, nor is there anything on the record to prove otherwise, and therefore the accused-appellant has not been able to sufficiently rebut the statutory presumption against him, as under Section 20 of the Act.
24.5 The factum of recovery has been sufficiently proven against the accused, as the tainted currency notes of Rs.100/-, in denominations of two notes of Rs. 50/- each, were recovered from the residence of the accused-appellant, kept under the eye- glasses of the appellant on the table, and upon testing of both his hands, it was found that he had in fact come into contact with the said currency as his hands turned a pinkish hue, and the same solution was sent for testing, and the F.S.L. report corroborated the same.
(Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 09:33:02 PM)
(19 of 19) [CRLA-669/2000]
25. This Court, therefore, finds that the learned Court below has categorically dealt with the evidences placed on record, and after a thorough scrutiny and appreciation of the same, found that presumption, under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption, against the appellant stands, and that he was unable to rebut the same. And the factum of recovery stood proved against him, and therefore rightly found him guilty for the offences under the Sections Section 7, 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
26. This Court, in light of the above made observations and the aforementioned precedent laws laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, finds that the impugned judgment dated 17.11.2000 passed by the learned Court below, does not suffer from any legal infirmity, and therefore, the same is upheld and affirmed.
27. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds and sureties are forfeited; he is directed to be taken into custody forthwith and sent to the concerned Jail to undergo the remaining period of his sentence. All pending applications are disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
Skant/-
(Downloaded on 09/09/2022 at 09:33:02 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)