2000 JTR(SC) 1167
2000 9 SCC 752 ; 2001 SCC(Cri) 1481 ; 2000 KHC 4211
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.T.Thomas : R.P.Sethi
State Of A.P.
Versus
Kommaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy
Case No. : 686 of 1996
Once receipt of an amount by a public servant is established, the burden of proof shifts to the public servant to demonstrate that the payment was not illegal gratification.
Act
Referred
:EVIDENCE ACT
: S.101, S.106
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT: S.5(1)(d), S.4
(A) Public Servant - Illegal Gratification - Burden of Proof - It is well settled that when an amount is found to have been passed to a public servant, the burden is on the public servant to establish that the payment was not by way of illegal gratification. (Para 1)
(B) Defense - Repayment of Hand Loan - Where the defense adopted by the accused is that the amount received was in repayment of a hand loan advanced earlier, and such defense is not found to be improbable, the finding of the High Court to that effect is not liable to be disturbed. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
A public servant was accused of receiving an amount of money. The respondent contended that the amount paid to him was in repayment of a hand loan advanced earlier. The High Court had held that this defense was not improbable.
Findings of Court:
The court agreed with the High Court's finding that the defense of hand loan repayment was not improbable. However, it disapproved of the legal proposition held by the High Court that the initial burden lies on the prosecution to prove that the amount was not paid by returning a hand loan.
Issues: Whether the initial burden of proof lies with the prosecution to disprove the defense of loan repayment or whether the burden shifts to the public servant once receipt of the amount is established.
Ratio Decidendi: Once it is established that the amount has passed to the public servant, the burden shifts to the public servant to establish that the amount was not received as illegal gratification.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
(B) Defense - Repayment of Hand Loan - Where the defense adopted by the accused is that the amount received was in repayment of a hand loan advanced earlier, and such defense is not found to be improbable, the finding of the High Court to that effect is not liable to be disturbed. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
A public servant was accused of receiving an amount of money. The respondent contended that the amount paid to him was in repayment of a hand loan advanced earlier. The High Court had held that this defense was not improbable.
Findings of Court:
The court agreed with the High Court's finding that the defense of hand loan repayment was not improbable. However, it disapproved of the legal proposition held by the High Court that the initial burden lies on the prosecution to prove that the amount was not paid by returning a hand loan.
Issues: Whether the initial burden of proof lies with the prosecution to disprove the defense of loan repayment or whether the burden shifts to the public servant once receipt of the amount is established.
Ratio Decidendi: Once it is established that the amount has passed to the public servant, the burden shifts to the public servant to establish that the amount was not received as illegal gratification.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
(1) AFTER hearing both sides we are not inclined to disturb the finding of the High Court that the defence adopted by the respondent (that the amount paid to him by PW 1 was in repayment of a hand loan advanced earlier) cannot be dubbed as improbable. At the same time we do not approve of a proposition of law propounded by the High Court that in such cases the initial burden is on the prosecution to prove that the amount was not paid by returning the hand loan. It is well settled that when the amount is found to have been passed to the public servant the burden is on the public servant to establish that it is not by way of illegal gratification.
(2) WE, therefore, dismiss this appeal.