Important point
Mere acceptance of money by an official will not be sufficient to fasten guilt u/s 5(1)(d) or 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act in absence of any evidence of demand and acceptance of amount as illegal gratification.

Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947—Section 5(1)(d) r/ws 5(2)—Appellant working as Executive Officer of Sri Swarnathaneswar Temple was convicted by High Court in appeal against acquittal for having accepted Rs. 200/- as illegal gratification to get patta of temple land in favour of PW1—Trial Court passed acquittal order holding that appellant gave reasonable and satisfactory explanation for receiving Rs. 200/- from PW1 by stating that amount had been tendered by PW1 as having been sent by PW6 towards his lease rent arrears—High Court held defence not acceptable in view of PW6 in his evidence denying that he had sent any lease rent—Appeal—If the reason for receiving the amount was explained and explanation was probable and reasonable then appellant had to be acquitted—High Court did not consider the explanation offered by appellant for receipt of money nor the previous enmity harboured by PWs 1, 2 and 6 towards him—Evidence threw out a clear alternative that accused was falsely implicated at the instance of PWs 1, 2 and 6—If two views were possible from very same evidence, it could not be said that prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant had accepted Rs. 200 as illegal gratification—High Court was not justified in interfering with order of acquittal.
Held : Mere receipt of Rs. 200/- by the appellant from PW-1 on 10.7.1987 (admitted by the appellant) will not be sufficient to fasten guilt under Section 5(1)(a) or Section 5(1)(d) of the Act, in the absence of any evidence of demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. If the amount had been paid as lease rent arrears due to the temple or even if it was not so paid, but the accused was made to believe that the payment was towards lease rent due to the temple, he cannot be said to have committed any offence. If the reason for receiving the amount is explained and the explanation is probable and reasonable, then the appellant had to be acquitted, as rightly done by the Special Court. (Para 7)
The High Court did not consider the explanation offered by the appellant for the receipt of the money nor the previous enmity harboured by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 towards the appellant. Nor did it hold that the decision of the trial court was erroneous or perverse. Re-appreciating the very evidence (on which the trial court had reached the conclusion that the payment was not by way of an illegal gratification but was towards lease rent due by PW-6 and paid through PW-1), the High Court relying on the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 concluded that the payment was by way of illegal gratification. In particular, it relied on the denial by PW-6 that he had sent any amount through PW-1, against the appellant. But the mere denial by PW-6 that he had sent the money through PW-1 cannot be a ground to hold the appellant guilty. If PWs. 1, 2 and 6 had hatched a conspiracy to involve the appellant in a criminal case, naturally PW-6 would deny having sent the amount through PW-1. The explanation given by the appellant immediately after the incident clearly explains all the circumstances and raises not only a reasonable but very serious doubt about the amount having been received by him as illegal gratification. The evidence throws out a clear alternative that the accused was falsely implicated at the instance of PWs. 1, 2 and 6. If two views were possible from the very same evidence, it cannot be said that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had received the sum of Rs.200/- as illegal gratification. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the trial court was right in holding that the charge against the appellant was not proved and the High Court was not justified in interfering with the same. (Paras 9 and 10)

Judgment

Raveendran, J.—This appeal by the accused is against the judgment dated 8.10.1999 of the Madras High Court in C.A.No. 627 of 1992, convicting him under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, (for short ‘the Act’). By the said judgment, the High Court reversed the judgment dated 29.7.1991 passed by the Special Judge, Thanjavur District at Kumbakonam in Special Case No. 2/1988 acquitting the accused.

2. The case of the prosecution was as follows:

2.1) The appellant was working as the Executive Officer of Sri Swarnathaneswar Temple, Chithaimoor, Tamil Nadu from September, 1985.

2.2) That one Shivashanmugam (PW-1) was in occupation of six cents of temple land (situated behind his house). PW-1 approached the appellant in June, 1987 for securing a patta in his favour in respect of the said land. The appellant told him to apply to the concerned authorities, namely, the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner (Endowments) and that he would help him in securing the patta. On 2.7.1987, the appellant sent word to PW-1 to meet him. PW-1 along with his friend (PW-2) went and met the appellant. The appellant then demanded Rs. 450 to help PW-1. Subsequently, the appellant reduced the demand to Rs. 300 and enquired as to how much money he was having. PW-1 stated that he was having Rs. 100/- and paid the said sum of Rs. 100/- to the appellant. The appellant told PW-1 that only if he (PW-1) paid the balance amount, he would make arrangements for transfer of patta. He reiterated the demand on 9.7.1997 when PW-1 and PW-2 again met him and paid Rs. 250/- towards lease arrears due by PW-1.

2.3) As PW-1 was not willing to pay the bribe, he gave a complaint (Ex. P-1) to the Inspector-Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Thanjavoor (PW-13) on 10.7.1987. At that time, PW-2 accompanied PW-1. PW-13 prepared the FIR (Ex.P-20). Thereafter, PW-13 introduced the complainant to two witnesses, namely, Kulandaivelu (PW-3), an Engineer, and Santhanagopalan, a Clerk. PW-1 handed-over Rs. 200/- (that in 4 currency notes of Rs. 50 each) to PW-13. Their numbers were noted and after explaining the procedure, the currency notes were coated with a chemical and returned to PW-1. Thereafter, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 were instructed as to how they should act when they went to meet the appellant.

2.4) Thereafter, PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-13, the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Santhanagopalan went to Chithamoor. They reached at about 8.15 p.m., parked he vehicles near the temple and PWs. 1 to 3 were sent inside. PW-1 and PW-2 went inside and PW-3 stood near the door. PW-1 stated that he had brought Rs. 200/- demanded by the appellant and gave the chemically treated currency notes to him. On receiving the same, the appellant stated that he has received PW-1’s petition and he would finish the work. PW-2, who accompanied PW-1, also requested the appellant to do the needful. Then they came out and gave the agreed signal. The Inspector of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police, who were standing outside came inside. On the appellant being identified by PW-1, he was asked whether he had received the amount. The appellant was holding the amount in his right hand, shifted it to his left hand and thereafter kept it on the table. Necessary chemical test was conducted and the amount was recovered. On query from the Inspector, the accused explained that PW-1 had paid the amount as due by Thyagarajan (PW-6) to the temple by way of lease arrears. Mahazar, sketch and search list were drawn up.

3. On behalf of the prosecution, 13 witnesses were examined in Ex. P-1 to P-21 marked, apart from MO 1 to 3. On behalf of the defence, DW-1 and DW-2 were examined and Ex. D-1 to D-10 were exhibited.

4. The case of the defence was as follows:

4.1) On 10.7.1987, PW-1 came along with PW-2 and stated that one Thyagarajan (PW-6) who was due in lease amount to the temple, had requested him (PW-1) to hand-over Rs. 200 towards his lease rent arrears. The compl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 13

Important pointMere acceptance of money by an official will not be sufficient to fasten guilt u/s 5(1)(d) or 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act in absence of any evidence of demand and acceptance of amount as illegal gratification.

Cases Referred (2)

Important point
Mere acceptance of money by an official will not be sufficient to fasten guilt u/s 5(1)(d) or 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act in absence of any evidence of demand and acceptance of amount as illegal gratification.