Back
1981 Supreme(Ori) 124
ORISSA HIGH COURT
B. K. BEHERA, J.
JADUNATH KHATUA
VERSUS
THE STATE
Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 1978,
Decided on : 17 -11 -1981.
The burden of proof lies on the accused to rebut the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, which presumes that an accused person who has accepted or obtained gratification has done so as a motive or reward for misconduct.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - CORRUPTION - ACCEPTANCE OF ILLEGAL GRATIFICATION - PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1947 - BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE ACCUSED - DISCHARGE OF BURDEN - EVIDENCE - APPRECIATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Revenue Inspector, was convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 50/- from a complainant to expedite a report in an Orissa Land Reforms Case. The appellant denied the charges and claimed that he had received the money from the Nazir of the Tahsil Office as repayment of a loan.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had established both charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The court relied on the evidence of the complainant, the overhearing witness, the Executive Magistrate, and the Vigilance Inspectors who were part of the trap party. The court also considered the appellant's defense and found it to be unconvincing.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had accepted illegal gratification from the complainant. 2. Whether the appellant had discharged the burden of proof to rebut the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant had accepted illegal gratification from the complainant based on the following evidence: - The recovery of the marked currency notes from the appellant's possession. - The evidence of the complainant and other witnesses that the appellant had demanded and received the money. - The appellant's conduct at the time of the recovery of the money, which was indicative of guilt. 2. The court held that the appellant had failed to discharge the burden of proof to rebut the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The court found that the appellant's defense was unconvincing and that he had not established that he had accepted the money for any purpose other than as a motive or reward to expedite the report in the Orissa Land Reforms Case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellant's appeal and upheld the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court.
JUDGEMENT
1. The appellant has been convicted under S.161 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called the Code) and S.5(2) read with S.5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for each of the two offences with a direction that the sentences would run concurrently.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution was that on 19-5-1976 the appellant, then serving as Revenue Inspector of the Nagram Circle in the Tahsil of Balasore, accepted on demand Rs. 50/- (fifty) from Prosanna Kumar Jena (P.W. 6) as illegal gratification as a motive for expediting a report called for from him (appellant) by the Tahsildar and Revenue Officer, Balasore, in Orissa Land Reforms Case No. 4 of 1975 which had been started by the father of P.W. 6. After it was agreed on 17-5-1976 that P.W. 6 would pay Rs. 50/- on 19-5-1976, the latter made a report (Ext. 11) to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance. stationed at Balasore and as authorised by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Cuttack, the Inspector of Vigilance (P.W. 12) took up the investigation of the case with the assistance of another Inspector of Vigilance (P.W. 9) deputed from Cuttack. On 19-5-1976, P.W. 12 made preparation for laying a trap and the preparation report (Ext. 13) was drawn up in the presence of P.Ws. 6 and 8 (Executive Magistrate) besides others and P.W. 9 made a demonstration as to how the sodium carbonate solution in contact with phenolphthalein powder would turn pink in colour. His hand-wash was collected in a bottle (M.O. II). The marked five Government currency notes of the denomination of rupees ten (M.O. I series) were processed with phenolphthalein powder put inside an envelope and were kept inside the chest pocket of P.W. 6 who was instructed to hand over the money to the appellant on his demand and the overhearing witness (P.W. 7) was instructed to hear the conversation between P.W. 6 and the appellant, watch the payment and signal the acceptance of bribe. Then all the members of the trap party proceeded to Nagram, the headquarters of the appellant and on learning that he had gone to the Tahsil Office at Balasore, the members of the trap party proceeded to that office at Balasore. P.Ws. 6 and 7 went ahead to the Tahsil Office and the other witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 8, 9 and 12 took positions at different places, P.W. 6 met the appellant on the Verandah of the Tehsil Office near the Nizarat and handed over M.O. I series to the appellant on his demand. Some time thereafter, the members of the trap party reached that place and on their demand for production of the money received from P.W. 6, the appellant, after some hesitation, brought out M.O. I series from inside his right pant pocket and dropped on the ground, M.O. I series were picked up by P.W. 8, the Executive Magistrate, who compared the numbers of the notes previously recorded in the preparation report (Ext. 13) and the numbers tallied. The hand-wash of the appellant, his pant pocket wash and the handwash of the Executive Magistrate, who compared the numbers of the currency notes were collected in three bottles (M.Os. III to V). The detection report (Ext. 18) was prepared by P.W. 12. In the course of the investigation, P.W. 12 examined the witnesses and after obtaining sanction from the Collector and District Magistrate, Balasore, as per Ext. 21, the sanction order placed a charge-sheet against the appellant who stood trial being charged with the aforesaid offences.
3. At the trial, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses. Of them, P.W. 6, as already indicated, was the complainant and P.W. 7 was the overhearing witness. The latter turned hostile, did not support the case of the prosecution and was put leading questions under Sec. 154 of the Evidence Act. P.W. 8 was the Executive Magistrate and P.Ws. 9 and 12 were Inspectors of Vigilance. The Collector and District Magistrate was examined as P.W
