2006 JTR(SC) 1054
2007 2 AICLR 297 ; 2007 1 ApexCJ(SC) 495 ; 2007 1 BLJ(SC) 91 ; 2007 1 CalLJ(SC) 247 ; 2007 1 CriCC 441 ; 2006 4 Crimes(SC) 326 ; 2007 1 EastCrC(SC) 155 ; 2006 4 KLT(SN) 64 ; 2007 1 PLJR(SC) 127 ; 2006 4 RCR(Cri) 938 ; 2006 11 Scale 288 ; 2006 12 SCC 277 ; 2007 1 SCC(Cri) 711 ; 2006 Supp8 SCR 368 ; 2007 UAD 148 ; 2006 8 Supreme 616
2006(8) Supreme 616
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Kerala High Court)
Arijit Pasayat and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
B. Noha - Appellant
versus
State of Kerala & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1122 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 952 of 2006)
Decided on 6-11-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Roy Abraham, Mrs. Seema Jain and Himinder Lal, Advocates.
For the Respondents : G. Prakash, Ms. Beena Prakash and K.D. Dileep Kumar, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
In a bribe case when it is proved that there was voluntary and conscious acceptance of money, there is no further burden cast on prosecution to prove by direct evidence the demand or motive.
Act Referred :PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT : S.13(2), S.7, S.13(1)(d)
(A) The accused was prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, specifically Sections 13(2), 7, and 13(1)(d), for allegedly demanding and accepting illegal gratification while serving as a public official in an official capacity. Section 7 criminalizes the acceptance of gratification by a public servant for performing an official act, while Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) addresses the misconduct of a public servant by abusing his position for personal gain, outlining the elements required to establish such offenses in public administration and anti-corruption jurisprudence.
(B) Key legal principles include that once the prosecution establishes the receipt of gratification, the law implies that it was accepted as motive or reward for an official act, placing the burden on the public servant to prove the contrary. The court emphasized that voluntary and conscious acceptance of money can give rise to an inference of gratification without direct evidence of a specific demand, and appellate courts will modify sentences to fit the minimum statutory punishment where the original sentence is deemed disproportionate.
Facts of the case:
While serving as a Health Inspector Grade-II, the accused was alleged to have demanded and accepted sums of money from a complainant on multiple occasions, including while handling official matters related to a push cart, with the prosecution relying on the testimony of interested witnesses. Following an investigation that included a sting operation, the accused was tried and convicted by the trial and high courts for offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, leading to the imposition of rigorous imprisonment and fines.
Findings of Court:
The court found the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to be credible and dismissed the defense's claims of improbality, holding that the accused had failed to rebut the presumption of gratification. The High Court confirmed the conviction and the trial courts findings, concluding that there was no lawful basis for the accused to receive the amounts in question.
Issues:
Whether the trial and high courts correctly evaluated the credibility of prosecution witnesses and whether the accused discharged the burden of proving the payments were lawful; and whether the sentences imposed were proportionate to the offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Ratio Decidendi:
The acceptance of money by a public servant in connection with official duties gives rise to a statutory presumption of gratification as a reward for the official act, and the public servant must prove otherwise. Appellate courts have the authority to reduce sentences to the statutory minimum where the original sentence exceeds appropriate limits.
Result:
The appeal was dismissed in substance, with the court reducing the sentence for the Section 7 offense to a minimum of six months and for the Section 13 offense to one year, both to run concurrently, and reducing the fine to ten thousand rupees with a default term of six months rigorous imprisonment.
(A) The accused was prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, specifically Sections 13(2), 7, and 13(1)(d), for allegedly demanding and accepting illegal gratification while serving as a public official in an official capacity. Section 7 criminalizes the acceptance of gratification by a public servant for performing an official act, while Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) addresses the misconduct of a public servant by abusing his position for personal gain, outlining the elements required to establish such offenses in public administration and anti-corruption jurisprudence.
(B) Key legal principles include that once the prosecution establishes the receipt of gratification, the law implies that it was accepted as motive or reward for an official act, placing the burden on the public servant to prove the contrary. The court emphasized that voluntary and conscious acceptance of money can give rise to an inference of gratification without direct evidence of a specific demand, and appellate courts will modify sentences to fit the minimum statutory punishment where the original sentence is deemed disproportionate.
Facts of the case:
While serving as a Health Inspector Grade-II, the accused was alleged to have demanded and accepted sums of money from a complainant on multiple occasions, including while handling official matters related to a push cart, with the prosecution relying on the testimony of interested witnesses. Following an investigation that included a sting operation, the accused was tried and convicted by the trial and high courts for offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, leading to the imposition of rigorous imprisonment and fines.
Findings of Court:
The court found the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to be credible and dismissed the defense's claims of improbality, holding that the accused had failed to rebut the presumption of gratification. The High Court confirmed the conviction and the trial courts findings, concluding that there was no lawful basis for the accused to receive the amounts in question.
Issues:
Whether the trial and high courts correctly evaluated the credibility of prosecution witnesses and whether the accused discharged the burden of proving the payments were lawful; and whether the sentences imposed were proportionate to the offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Ratio Decidendi:
The acceptance of money by a public servant in connection with official duties gives rise to a statutory presumption of gratification as a reward for the official act, and the public servant must prove otherwise. Appellate courts have the authority to reduce sentences to the statutory minimum where the original sentence exceeds appropriate limits.
Result:
The appeal was dismissed in substance, with the court reducing the sentence for the Section 7 offense to a minimum of six months and for the Section 13 offense to one year, both to run concurrently, and reducing the fine to ten thousand rupees with a default term of six months rigorous imprisonment.
Presumption - Cited to establish that once payment or acceptance of gratification is proven, the court may presume it was accepted as motive or reward for official act.
Burden - Cited as a decision that was followed by this Court regarding the burden of proving lawful receipt of amount by a public servant.
Burden - Cited to hold that when amount is found to have been passed to a public servant, the burden is on the public servant to establish it was not illegal gratification.
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J. - Leave granted.
2. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the Act)
3. The Enquiry Commissioner and the Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable as aforesaid, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- with default stipulation in respect of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act. Further, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
4. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The prosecution case against the appellant was that while the appellant was working as Health Inspector Grade-II, at Thirnmala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram City Corporation, he demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.100/- from PW-1 on 27.11.1997 and a further amount of Rs.100/- on 6.1.1998 as illegal gratification and thereby committed the above offences. Earlier the officials of the Municipal Corporation including the accused removed the push cart belonging to PW-1 along with the articles to the office of the Corporation and for release of the articles and for sending the report to the Corporation, the accused demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.200/- from PW-1. For the release of the push cart, the accused demanded a further sum of Rs.200/- from PW-1 on 29.1.1998 besides the fine imposed by the Health Officer and PW-1 then went to the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB Unit PW-9, and gave Ext.P1 first information statement on the basis of which Crime No.VC.2/98 was registered and a trap was arranged. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and produced Exts.P1 to P13 and MOS.1 to 6. DW1 was examined on the side of the defence, to prove innocence of accused, as pleaded by him. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) and he denied the charge levelled against him. He also filed a detailed statement in which he stated that he never received any amount from PW-1 and that PW-1 came to his office and forcibly put the money into his pocket. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
5. Trial Court mainly placed reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 to hold the accused guilty. It is to be noted that PW-3 did not support the prosecution version. The trial Court found that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is credible and cogent and, therefore, the prosecution has brought out the accusations made against the appellant. Before the High Court the trial Courts judgment was primarily attacked on the ground that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 should not have been accepted as they were interested witnesses, more particularly when PW-3 did not support the prosecution version. The High Court did not find any substance in the submissions and as noted above confirmed the conviction and sentence.
6. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accused had clearly established the improbabilities in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and, therefore, it was submitted that the trial Court and the High Court ought not to have convicted the appellant. Additionally, it was submitted that considering the nature of the accusations the sentences imposed are harsh.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the judgment of the trial Court as confirmed by the High Court. Both the trial Court and the High Court have elaborately dealt with the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 to hold that the accused was guilty.
8. Though the evidence of PW-1 was levelled as the evidence of interested witness, there is no substance in it. There was no basis for PW-1 to falsely implicate the accused. On the other hand, the evidence on record clearly shows as to why the illegal gratification was demanded and accepted by the appellant. The evidence of PW-1, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.
9. Added to that is the evidence of PW-2 which is also clear, credible and cogent.
10. The evidence shows that when PW-1 told the accused that he had brought the money as directed by the accused, the accused asked PW-1 to take cut and give the same to him. When it is proved that there was voluntary and conscious acceptance of the money, there is no further burden cast on the prosecution to prove by direct evidence, the demand or motive. It has only to be deduced from the facts and circumstances obtained in the particular case. It was held by this Court in Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra (2000 (8) SCC 571) as follows:
"The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the presumption is that there was payment or acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise is established the inference to be drawn is that the said gratification was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act. So the word gratification need not be stretched to mean reward because reward is the outcome of the presumption which the court has to draw on the factual premises that there was payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like gratification or any valuable thing. If acceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, the word gratification must be treated in the context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the public servant who received it."
11. This decision was followed by this Court in M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P. (2001 (1) SCC 691). There is no case of the accused that the said amount was received by him as the amount which he was legally entitled to receive or collect from PW-1. It was held in the decision in State of A.P. v. Kommaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy (2000 (9) SCC 752), 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. That burden was not discharged by the accused.
12. Coming to the question of sentence, it is to be noted that the minimum sentence for offence relatable to Section 7 is six months while that relatable to Section 13(1)(d) is one year. Considering the nature of the accusations, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence to the minimum prescribed under the statute. In other words it shall be six months and one year respectively to run concurrently. The amount of fine is also reduced to Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation of six months rigorous imprisonment.
13. The appeal is dismissed except to the extent of modification of sentence as noted above.
Appeal dismissed.
***************