Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, J. :- In this appeal by special leave the question for consideration is whether the concurrent finding of guilt recorded by the learned Special Judge, Jaipur and the High Court of Rajasthan is in accordance with law and the evidence in the case. The appellant has been convicted under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947, as also under Section 161 of the Penal Code. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- on each count.

2. The complainant Umashanker is a cleaner in the Loco Shed. Kotah. The appellant was working at the material time, as a clerk in the office of the Loco Foreman, Western Railway, Kotha, one of his duties being to process applications made by a certain class of employees for advances for the Provident Fund Account. On April 8, 1966, the complainant presented an application to the appellant asking for an advance of Rs. 150/- from his Provident Fund Account. It is alleged that the appellant refused to accept the application unless the complainant agreed to pay to him a gratification of Rs. 15/-. On April 10, the complainant approached a Vigilance Officer Srinath Sharan Srivastava and lodged a complaint before him that the appellant was demanding a bribe. On the12th the Vigilance Officer took the complainant to the office of the Special Police Establishment. Jaipur, where Inspector Ajmera asked the complainant to make one more attempt to present the application to the appellant. According, the complainant re-submitted his application on the 13th when the appellant is alleged to have renewed his demand for a bribe. A trap was thereafter laid and it is alleged that the appellant accepted from the complainant a sum of Rs. 15/- on the evening of the 13th at Meghraj Hotel . The two currency notes of Rs. 10/- and 5/- were treated with sodium carbonate powder and the payment is alleged to have been witnessed by the motbirs Jagdish Prasad Tiwari and Bhagwandas Makhija.

3. The appellant admitted the receipt of the amount but contended that the amount was paid to him by the complainant in part payment of a loan of Rs. 30/- which had been advanced by him to the complainant on November 1, 1965. He stated that the complainant had not presented to him any application at all on April 8 and on the 13th the application was presented not to him but to the Head-clerk. According to him the application of the 13th was processed by him in the ordinary course and on the loan being recommended by the Loco Foreman, the application was duly forwarded to the despatch clerk for obtaining the sanction of the Divisional Superintendent s Office.

4. On the central issue whether the sum of Rs. 15/- had passed hands from the complainant to the appellant, we have the admission of the appellant himself but quite apart from that admission, there is clear and convincing evidence to show that the appellant had accepted the money from the complainant. The evidence of the complainant Umashanker (P.W. 4). Jagdish Prasad (P.W.5) and Bhagwandas Makhija (P.W.6) leaves no doubt on this point.

5. Section 4 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, provides to the extent material, that where in any trial of an offence punishable under Sec. 161 of the Penal Code or under Section 5 (2) of the Act. It is proved that an accused person has accepted "any gratification (other than legal remuneration)", it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that he accepted that gratification as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 161, Penal Code. The motive or reward mentioned in Section 161, is, inter alia, for doing or forbearing to do any official act.

6. The prosecution having proved that the appellant had accepted the sum of Rs. 15/- which clearly is no part of his legal remuneration, the presumption must be raised under Section 4 (1) of the Act that the appellant accepted the amount as a motive or reward for doing an official a