Summary
The trial court had convicted a sub-treasury First Division Assistant of demanding and accepting Rs. 2,000 to pass a leave-encashment bill, but the High Court acquitted him because no work was pending with him on the trap date. The Supreme Court restored the conviction: demand, acceptance and recovery were proved, and work was still pending because the cheque had not been issued. The unproved loan defence did not rebut the Section 20 presumption, and the acquittal was perverse.
Issues
- Whether demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and recovery of the tainted notes were proved against the respondent.
- Whether the respondent's plea that the bill had been passed and no work was pending with him on the date of the trap negated the offences.
- Whether the presumption under Section 20 was rebutted, and whether the small amount of the bribe justified declining to draw it.
- Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the conviction.
Provisions considered
- Section 7, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Its ingredients were stated as a public servant accepting gratification for himself as a motive or reward for an official act or for showing favour or disfavour. These were found proved through the complainant, the panch witnesses, sub-treasury officials and the investigating officers. (¶¶ 13, 19, 21, 22, 23)
- Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) (prior to the 2018 amendment), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Because the offence was committed on 05.08.2009, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act made the pre-2018 version of Section 13(1)(d) applicable. Its ingredients are a public servant who, by corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position, obtains a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; they were found established. (¶¶ 13, 23)
- Section 6, General Clauses Act, 1897Applied to hold that the amendment of Section 13(1)(d) with effect from 26.07.2018 did not affect an offence committed in 2009, which remained governed by the earlier provision. (¶ 13)
- Section 20, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Once demand and acceptance were proved, the court presumed that the gratification was a motive or reward. The accused could rebut this on a preponderance of probability but failed to. Sub-section (3) gives only a discretion to decline the presumption where the gratification is trivial, and the Court refused to exercise it here. (¶¶ 14, 21, 23)
- Section 19, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988The sanction (Ex.P25) was granted by the Director of Treasury, the competent and disciplinary authority, after examining the investigation material and recording prima facie satisfaction. No procedural irregularity was found. (¶ 16)
- Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The respondent's plea in his Section 313 statement that the money was repayment of a hand loan was disbelieved because no oral or documentary evidence supported it. (¶ 22)
Held
- Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential, and mere recovery of currency notes is not enough. Following the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta, demand and acceptance may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, and the Section 20 presumption arises only after they are proved. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- Demand, acceptance and recovery of the tainted notes were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence included a tape-recorded demand and the consistent testimony of the complainant, the panch witnesses, sub-treasury officials and the investigating officers, none of which was shaken in cross-examination. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 21)
- The plea that no work was pending was rejected. Although the cheque had been prepared, it had not been issued and the school had not been told it was ready, and no reason was given for holding it back. Work on a bill is complete only when the cheque is issued. (¶ 20)
- The respondent did not rebut the Section 20 presumption. His claim that the money repaid a hand loan was unsupported by any evidence and improbable given the parties' relationship. (¶¶ 21, 22)
- The High Court wrongly relied on A. Subair v. State of Kerala, where the complainant was not examined and the evidence had discrepancies. The size of the gratification must be judged in proportion to the favour sought, and a presumption does not require a substantial amount. Declining the presumption for a trivial amount under Section 20(3) is a discretionary exception, and the Court declined to apply it. (¶ 23)
- An appellate court does not set aside an acquittal merely because another view is possible. Here, however, once demand and acceptance were established, no two views were possible and the High Court's approach was perverse. (¶ 24)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and the trial court's conviction and sentence restored. The trial court is to secure the respondent, commit him to prison for the remaining sentence and recover the fine.