2003 Supreme(SC) 1146

2003(8) Supreme 239
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Doraiswamy Raju and Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
State of Andhra Pradesh -Appellant
versus
V. Vasudeva Rao -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 1997
Decided on 13-11-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ms. T. Anamika, G. Prabhakar, Advocates.
For the Respondent : R. Mohan, Sr. Advocate, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Md. Wasay Khan, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. If any money is received and no convincing, credible and acceptable explanation is offered by the accused, a public servant as to how it came to be received by him, the accused can be convicted under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. In a case involving acceptance of illegal gratification there is no scope for any leniency while awarding sentence.

Headnote:(i) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-Sections 5(2) rw/s 5(1)(d)-Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 161-Evidence Act, 1872-Section 4-Accepting illegal gratification-Accused-respondent was posted as Assistant Controller, Weights and Measures-He was kept in charge of superior post of Deputy Controller-Prosecution case that accused made a demand of Rs. 2000/- from complainant, Inspector of Weights and Measures for stopping his transfer-Trap case-Tainted amount of Rs. 1,000/- found to be possessed by accused-Plea that he had given a hand loan was held to have not been established-No explanation offered for presence of phenolphthalein powder-However, High Court acquitted accused holding that prosecution has failed to prove demand and acceptance of money by the accused-Whether approach of the High Court is justified-(No)-When receipt of money was admitted it was for accused to prove as to how the presumption u/s 4 of the Act is not available-Accused convicted of offence u/s 161 IPC and Section 5(2) rw/s 5(1)(d) of the Act of 1947-Sentence reduced to minimum of one year maintaining fine of Rs. 5000/-, considering that accused is aged 75 years.

       Held : When the sub-section deals with legal presumption, it is to be understood as in terrorem i.e. in tone of a command that it has to be presumed that the accused accepted the gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act etc., if the condition envisaged in the former part of the section is satisfied. The only condition for drawing such a legal presumption under Section 4 is that during trial it should be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. The Section does not say that the said condition should be satisfied through direct evidence. Its only requirement is that it must be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept gratification. Direct evidence is one of the modes through which a fact can be proved. But that is not the only mode envisaged in the Evidence Act. (Para 15)

       If any money is received and no convincing, credible and acceptable explanation is offered by the accused as to how it came to be received by him, the presumption under Section 4 of the Act is available. When the receipt is admitted it is for the accused to prove as to how the presumption is not available as perforce the presumption arises and becomes operative. When the factual position is examined in the background of legal principles culled out from various decisions of this Court, the inevitable conclusion is that the High Court s judgment is indefensible. We set aside the judgment and hold that the accused was rightly convicted under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Act by the trial Court. (Paras 26 and 27)

       (ii) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-Section 5(2) rw/s 5(1)(d)-Conviction for receiving illegal gratification-Sentence-Accused aged 75 years -Prolonged trial for about 14 years-Whether can be considered as a special reason for reducing minimum sentence-(No).

       Held : In a case involving acceptance of illegal gratification there is no scope for any leniency. The tentacles of corruption are spreading fast in the society corroding the moral fibre and consequentially in most cases the economic structure of the country. It has assumed alarming proportions in recent times. Though the occurrence at hand took place nearly 14 years back, yet as noted at the threshold, the Act was brought into anvil in the year of country s independence. The object appeared to be to nip the propensity for being corrupt in the bud. The growth of corruption has to a great extent frustrated the purpose for which the Act was enacted, and both the Act and its successor Act in 1988 do not appear to have curbed the growth of corruption, and to have achieved the intended results. (Para 28)

       When corruption was sought to be eliminated from the polity all possible stringent measures are to be adopted within the bounds of law. One such measure is to provide condign punishment. Parliament measured the parameters for such condign punishment and in that process wanted to fix a minimum sentence of imprisonment for giving deterrent impact on other public servants who are prone to corrupt deals. That was precisely the reason why the sentence was fixed as 7 years and directed that even if the said period of imprisonment need not be given the sentence shall not be less than the imprisonment for one year. Such a legislative insistence is reflection of Parliament s resolve to meet corruption cases with a very strong hand and to give signals of deterrence as the most pivotal feature of sentencing of corrupt public servants. All public servants were warned through such a legislative measure that corrupt public servants have to face very serious consequences. If on the other hand any public servant is given the impression that if he succeeds in protracting the proceedings that would help him to have the advantage of getting a very light sentence even if the case ends in conviction, we are afraid its fallout would afford incentive to public servants who are susceptible to corruption to indulge in such nefarious practices with immunity. Increasing the fine after reducing the imprisonment to a nominal period can also defeat the purpose as the corrupt public servant could easily raise the fine amount through the same means. (Para 30)

       (iii) Words and Phrases-Gratification, meaning-Context in which word is used is important-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-Sections 40, 5(2) rw/s 5(1)(d).

       Held : In Black s Law Dictionary, "gratification" is defined as "a recompense or reward for services or benefits, given voluntarily, without solicitation or promise". But in Oxford Advance Learner s Dictionary of Current English the said word is given the meaning "to give pleasure or satisfaction to". Among the above two descriptions for the word "gratification" with slightly differing nuances as between the two, what is more appropriate for the context has to be found out. The context in which the word is used in Section 4(1) of the Act is, hence, important. (Para 23)