(1999) 8 Supreme Court Cases 501 – ... vs S.Tamizhselvan on 28 May, 2013
http://www.judis.nic.in
13
“11. The law on the issue is well settled that
demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for
constituting an offence under the 1988 Act. Mere
recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to
convict the accused, when the substantive
evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there
is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show
that the money was taken voluntarily as bribe.
Mere receipt of amount by the accused is not
sufficient to fasten the guilt, in the absence of
any evidence with regard to demand and
acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification,
but the burden rests on the accused to displace
the statutory presumption raised under Section
20 of the 1988 Act, by bringing on record
evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to
establish with reasonable probability, that the
money was accepted by him, other than as a
motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of
the 1988 Act. While invoking the provisions of
Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to
consider the explanation offered by the accused,
if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance
of probability and not on the touchstone of proof
beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the
accused is called upon to explain as to how the
amount in question was found in his possession,
the foundational facts must be established by the
prosecution. The complainant is an interested
and partisan witness concerned with the success
of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the
same way as that of any other interested witness
http://www.judis.nic.in
and in a proper case the court may look for
14
independent corroboration before convicting the
accused person.”
2.2011(3) MWN (Cr.) 322 – A.S.Kannan V. State,
wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: