1951 Supreme(Cal) 141

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Das Gupta, P. B. Mukharji
M. C. MITRA - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Criminal Appeal 158  Of  1950
Decided On : MAY 23, 1951

The presumption against the accused under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, regarding motive or reward is rebuttable and can be overcome by evidence showing the contrary.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II [2] of 1947) - Section 4 - Presumption against accused - Interpretation and application - Burden of proof on prosecution - Standard of proof - Acceptance of gratification or valuable thing for another person - Rebuttable presumption - Evidence to rebut presumption - Magistrate acting as witness in police trap - Undesirability and impropriety - Independence of magistracy.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, an Accounts Officer and Financial Adviser to the Deputy General Manager, Grains, East Indian Railway, Calcutta, was convicted under Section 161, Penal Code, for accepting a bribe of Rs. 2000 from G. H. M. Patel of Messrs G. C. Bose and Co., a supplier to the East Indian Railway Administration, with the motive of facilitating the passing of outstanding bills of Messrs. G. C. Bose and Co. The prosecution case was based on a police trap laid at the office of M. G. Corporation, a business concern belonging to the appellant's brother, where the appellant was seen receiving the bribe money from Patel in the presence of a Magistrate, Mr. T. P. Mukherjee, who was introduced as a Chittagong partner of Patel. The appellant claimed that the money was intended for his brother as earnest money for a match box tender in which Patel wanted to join his brother.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution case was improbable and the defense version was more probable. The court noted several factors that raised doubts about the prosecution case, including the public and ceremonial setting of the alleged bribe acceptance, the appellant's immediate explanation that the money was for his brother's match box tender, and the absence of G. C. Bose, the supplier, from the scene. The court also found that Patel's evidence was not trustworthy and that the appellant's interpretation of the contract terms regarding the penalty for non-supply was correct.

Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant accepted the bribe money with the motive of facilitating the passing of outstanding bills of Messrs. G. C. Bose and Co.? 2. Whether the appellant's defense that the money was intended for his brother as earnest money for a match box tender was credible and supported by evidence? 3. Whether the presumption against the accused under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, regarding motive or reward was rebutted by the appellant's evidence and surrounding circumstances? 4. Whether the practice of Magistrates acting as witnesses in police traps was undesirable and improper, undermining the independence of the magistracy?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant accepted the bribe money with the motive of facilitating the passing of outstanding bills of Messrs. G. C. Bose and Co. The court found that the prosecution case was improbable and the defense version was more probable, based on the surrounding circumstances, the appellant's immediate explanation, and the absence of the supplier from the scene. 2. The court found that the appellant's defense that the money was intended for his brother as earnest money for a match box tender was credible and supported by evidence. The court noted that the appellant had mentioned this to the Magistrate immediately after the incident, that there was a press note issued about the match box tender, and that the appellant's interpretation of the contract terms regarding the penalty for non-supply was correct. 3. The court held that the presumption against the accused under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, regarding motive or reward was rebutted by the appellant's evidence and surrounding circumstances. The court clarified that the presumption under Section 4 arises only upon proof that the accused accepted or agreed to accept a gratification or valuable thing, and that the burden of proof still remains on the prosecution to prove this acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The court also held that the presumption can be rebutted by the accused through oral testimony, statement under Section 342, Criminal P. C., documents, or surrounding circumstances. 4. The court strongly disapproved of the practice of Magistrates acting as witnesses in police traps, stating that it undermines the independence of the magistracy and perverts their judicial outlook. The court emphasized the importance of an independent and untramelled magistracy for the sound and impartial administration of criminal justice.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge.