1. Public servant convicted for demanding and accepting illegal gratification for official work under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 1972
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. Banumathi, Indira Banerjee, JJ.
Kamal Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Tr. C.B.I. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 2010
Decided On : 23-10-2018
Advocates Appeared:
Satyakam, AOR, for the Appellant; Mr. Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi, Mr. Harish Pandey, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Mr. Ujjwal Jain, Advocates and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR, for the Respondent
Satyakam, AOR, for the Appellant; Mr. Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi, Mr. Harish Pandey, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Mr. Ujjwal Jain, Advocates and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR, for the Respondent
Important Points
The burden of proof to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act rests on the accused, and mere explanation attempting to create doubt on the prosecution case may not be sufficient to rebut the presumption.
Subject
Criminal Law - Corruption
Act Referred
Headnote
Corruption - Criminal Appeal - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7, Section 13(1)(d), Section 13(2)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Phone Inspector, was convicted under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and accepting a bribe for installation of a telephone connection.
Finding of the Court:
The Court affirmed the conviction and reduced the sentence, citing evidence of demand and acceptance of the bribe, statutory presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act, and the appellant's failure to rebut the presumption.
Issues: The issues included material contradictions in witness testimony, burden of proof, and the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the contradictions in witness testimony were not material, upheld the burden of proof on the accused, and confirmed the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act.
Final Decision: The conviction under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C Act was confirmed, with the sentence of imprisonment reduced to six months and one year respectively, to run concurrently.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to witness credibility, improper shifting of burden of proof, and incorrect application of statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. (Para 5 )
3. Concurrent findings on demand and acceptance are upheld; sodium carbonate test confirms acceptance, triggering the statutory presumption of guilt. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. Statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act arises upon proof of acceptance of gratification, requiring the accused to rebut it. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Conviction confirmed; sentences under Section 13(1)(d) and Section 7 reduced to one year and six months respectively; appeal partly allowed. (Para 9 , 10 )
6. When is the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act raised?
The presumption under Section 20 is raised the moment the prosecution proves that the accused accepted or obtained any gratification or valuable thing. (Para 7 )
7. What is the nature of the burden on the accused to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
The burden is not as onerous as that cast on the prosecution; the accused must establish with reasonable probability that the money was accepted other than as illegal gratification. (Para 8 )
8. Does a mere explanation attempting to create doubt in the prosecution's case suffice to rebut the Section 20 presumption?
No, a mere explanation attempting to create doubt on the prosecution case may not be sufficient to rebut the presumption raised under Section 20 of the PC Act. (Para 8 )
ORDER
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.194 of 1999 in and by which the High Court has affirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also reducing the sentence of imprisonment of one year and one and a half year respectively.
2. During the relevant time, the appellant was working as a Phone Inspector in MTNL Exchange at Okhla. On 7th January, 1994, complainant-PW-2 contacted SDO/PW-9 for installation of new telephone connection for the residence of his brother who was in abroad. PW-9 referred PW-2 to the appellant who was then the phone inspector. The appellant for ensuring early installation of the telephone connection, the appellant is said to have demanded Rs. 3,000/- and asked PW-2 to come to his office on 10th January, 1994 at 11.30 a.m. PW-2 complainant lodged the complaint, based on which the trap was arranged by PW-8 (Trap Laying Officer). On 10th January, 1994, PW-2 complainant accompanied by PW-3 (Shadow witness) went to the office and paid bribe money of Rs. 3,000/- to the appellant on showing the pre-arranged signal PW-8 Trap Laying Officer and his team went inside the office when the left hand fingers and the pant pocket of the accused was dipped in the solution, the same turned pink. On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under Section 7 and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act.
3. Upon consideration of the evidence, the Trial Court convicted the appellant guilty under Section 7 and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In appeal, the conviction of the appellant was was confirmed; however, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced as aforesaid.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the materials on record.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us through the evidence of witnesses and submitted that the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 suffers from material contradictions and the same was not considered in proper perspective. Learned counsel further submitted that when the accused was charged for the offence under Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Trial Court as well as the High Court was not right in placing the burden of proof upon the accused. It was also submitted that the Courts below ought not to have raised the presumption against the appellant under Section 20 of the P.C. Act.
6. Insofar as the contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the contradictions are not so material affecting the credibility of the witnesses PW-2 and PW-3. Further the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings accepting the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 as to the demand and acceptance of the bribe. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below as to the demand and acceptance of the amount upon consideration of the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3.
7. Insofar as the arguments advanced regarding presumption raised under Section 20 of the P.C. Act, the statutory presumption to be raised wherein any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7. The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act will be raised, the moment the prosecution proves that the accused accepted or obtained any gratification or valuable thing. When the law makes a presumption of guilt and throws upon the accused the burden of proving his innocence, it is for the accused to rebut the presumption. By the Sodium Carbonate solution turning pink, it is proved that accused has accepted or obtained illegal gratification.
8. In this case, by the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 and also based on sodium carbonate solution and dipping the hands and pant pocket of the accused turning pink
