A patwari challenged his conviction for demanding and receiving a bribe for supplying a land-record copy. The Court held that recovery stood proved and the statutory presumption remained unrebutted. It dismissed the appeal, upheld the conviction and sentence, and directed immediate custody to serve the remaining sentence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 669/2000
Manohar Lal
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Raj.
----Respondent
| For Appellant(s) | : Mr. Chaitanya Gehlot a/w Mr. Bhawani |
|---|---|
| Singh & Mr. Amit Kumar Purohit | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Arun Kumar,P.P. |
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 02/09/2022 Pronounced on 09/09/2022
“ It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the accused appellant may be acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.”
(2 of 19)
[CRLA-669/2000]
(3 of 19)
[CRLA-669/2000]
of conviction against the appellant. It is submitted that for an offence to be made out under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, demand of an illegal gratification coupled with the subsequently recovery of the same has to be proven against the accused. And that, both the said statutory requirements are absent in the present case.
(4 of 19)
[CRLA-669/2000]
with the requests of the complainant, regarding providing him with a copy of the jamabandi.
(5 of 19)
[CRLA-669/2000]
88 .
Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
“Corruption in a civilised society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time is sure to malignancies the polity of country leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been termed as Royal thievery. The socio-political system exposed to such a dreaded communicable disease is likely to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti people, but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence shaking of the socio-economic political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society.”
“ 7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official Act
(6 of 19)
[CRLA-669/2000]
Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than 1[three years] but which may extend to 2[seven years] and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.—
(a) "Expecting to be a public servant." If a person not expecting to be in office obtains a gratification by deceiving others into a belief that he is about to be in office, and that he will when serve them, be may be guilty of cheating,
but he is not guilty of the offence defined in this section.
(b) "Gratification." The word “gratification" is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money.
(c) "Legal remuneration." The words "legal remuneration" are not restricted to remuneration which a public servant can lawfully demand, but include all remuneration which he is permitted by the Government or the organisation, which he serves, to accept.
(d) "A motive or reward for doing." A person who receives a gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or is not in a position to do, or has not done, comes within this expression.
(e) Where a public servant induces a person erroneously to believe that his influence with the Government has obtained a title for that person and thus induces that person to give the public servant, money or any other
(7 of 19)
[CRLA-669/2000]
gratification as a reward for this service, the public servant has committed an offence under this section”
13. Criminal, misconduct by a public servant
(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, —
(a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as active or reward such as is mentioned in section 7; or
(b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceedings or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or
(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or (d) if he,—
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public, interest; or
(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot
(8 of 19)
[CRLA-669/2000]
satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, "known sources of income" means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than 1[four years] but which may extend to 2[ten years] and shall also be liable to fine."
20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration
(1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) or subsection (1) of section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved , that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.
(2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under section 12 or under clause (b) of section 14, it is proved that any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7, or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.
(9 of 19)
[CRLA-669/2000]
referred to in either of the said sub-sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no interference of corruption may fairly be drawn."
(10 of 19)
[CRLA-669/2000]
of the currency notes and the clothes and/or person of the accused, or his conduit, by phenolphthalein powder or anthracene powder, testimonies of complainant and/or investigating officer/shadow witness and/or trap/panch/ motbir witness and/or other witnesses, and whether any of the witnesses have turned hostile; the accused may rebut the same, to the satisfaction of the competent Court and averting to the facts of the case, by providing a justification / explanation to such demand.
“… that when amount is found to have been passed to the public servant the burden is on public servant to establish that it was not by way of illegal gratification.”
(11 of 19)
[CRLA-669/2000]
the accused, then a presumption under Section 20 of the Act of 1988 is made against the accused, and the burden of proof of rebutting the same then lies on the shoulders of the accused. 21. Furthermore, in Guruviah & Ors. Vs. The State (2019) 8 SCC 396 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court referenced the ratio decidendi laid down earlier in T. Shankar Prasad v. State of A.P. (2004) 3 SCC 753 and also took into consideration, that although a justification / explanation was given by the accused, it was not offered immediately after the recovery of money but at a belated stage, which called into question the authenticity of the same.
Relevant portion of T. Shankar (supra) is reproduced below:-
“ The involvement of both of the them a well-planned and cleverly managed device to systematically collect money stood sufficiently established on the evidence let in by the prosecution. Further, A-2 did not offer his explanation immediately after the recovery of money. A similar plea of receiving money as advance tax was rejected and affirmed by this Court in A. Abdul Kaffar v. State of Kerala.”
“We have gone through the detailed judgment and order of conviction passed by the Learned Trial Court and also the evidence on record laid down by the prosecution as well as the defence. We have perused the impugned judgment and order
(12 of 19)
[CRLA-669/2000]
of acquittal passed by the High Court to ascertain whether the High Court has conformed to the principles while exercising in the criminal appeal against the judgment and order of conviction. We find that the High Court has not strictly proceeded in the manner in which High Court ought to have while dealing with the appeal against the order of conviction. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court, we find that, as such, there is no re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record in detail while acquitting the Respondent - Accused. The High Court has only made general observations on the depositions of the witnesses examined.
The High Court ought to have appreciated that it was dealing with the first appeal against the order of conviction passed by the Learned trial Court. Being First Appellate Court, the High Court was required to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record and also the reasoning given by the Learned trial Court while convicting the Accused. Being the First Appellate Court the High Court ought to have reappreciated the entire evidence on record without any limitation, which might be there while dealing with an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Learned Trial Court.
Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court acquitting the Respondent - Accused without adverting to the reasons given by the Learned trial Court while convicting the Accused and without reappreciating the entire evidence on record in detail cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.”
22.2 State of U.P. Vs. Ram Asrey 1990 Supp (1) SCC 12
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-
(13 of 19)
[CRLA-669/2000]
2) The evidence adduced by the prosecution that even on 5.11.79, the respondent demanded the bribe from Ambar Prasad in the presence of other persons without taking any precaution is not convincing.
The sum and substance of the above reasonings go to show that there is no acceptable and clinging evidence proving that there was a demand of bribe and that the respondent accepted the amount in question as a motive or reward for doing an official act or showing a favour to Ambar Prasad in expertise of his official function .
On going through the impugned judgment of the High Court, we are of the view that the facts and circumstances of this case do not warrant interference.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed”
22.3 Ayyasami Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1992) 1 SCC 304
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court made the following observations:-
“The High Court found that the witnesses who were associated in the conduct of the raid for recovery of tainted money from the appellant could not be termed as independent who could be associated with such raids. The High Court further expressed doubt about veracity of the witness who claimed that money was actually handed over in his presence. The High Court, however, drew an adverse inference against the appellant from the circumstance that the, bill which was delayed for unreasonable period had suddenly been passed by the appellant On an overall assessment the High Court entertained some suspicion about the credibility of the prosecution witnesses but at the same time did not find the suspicion to be strong enough to raise doubt about the
(14 of 19)
[CRLA-669/2000]
guilt of the appellant. We agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant that in the face of the finding that the witnesses who formed part of the raiding party were not independent and the evidence regarding handing over money to the appellant being unbelievable, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. The guilt of the appellant has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and as such the benefit must go to him. ”
22.4 Meena Vs. The State of Maharashtra (2000) 5 SCC 21
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court made the following observations:-
“ Law has always favoured the presence and importance of a shadow witness in the trap party, not only to facilitate such witness to see but also overhear what happens and how it happens also.
The other person, who was present at the place of occurrence though cited initially as witness, was not examined by the prosecution but later was got examined as DW-1 and evidence of this person completely belies the prosecution story. The corroboration essential in a case like this for what actually transpired at the time of the alleged occurrence and acceptance of bribe is very much wanting in this case. Even the other panch witness, PW-5, categorically admitted that even as the Inspector of Police, PW-6, arrived, the appellant gave the same version that PW-1 tried to force into her hands the currency note which she turned down by pushing it away, and his evidence also does not lend credibility to the case of the prosecution.
It is an obligation of judicial conscience to correct errors, where the same are manifest. The judgments of the courts below suffer from serious infirmities and manifest errors on account of unwarranted inferences liberally drawn by the courts below against the appellant, overlooking the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence of an accused till the charge leveled and his guilt is established beyond all reasonable doubt. The courts below have failed to consider the adverse impact on the prosecution case from the evidence of PW-2 and the withholding of the lady constable and Jagdish Bokade, two material witnesses.
(15 of 19)
[CRLA-669/2000]
The materials on record in this case are not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the appellant. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside and the fine, if any, paid shall be refunded to the appellant. ”
22.5 Seema Silk and Sarees and Ors. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and Ors. (2008) 5 SCC 580 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, with regard to presumption made against the accused, made the following observations:-
“The presumption raised against the trader is a rebuttable one. Reverse burden as also statutory presumptions can be raised in several statutes as, for example, the Negotiable Instruments Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, TADA, etc. Presumption is raised only when certain foundational facts are established by the prosecution. The accused in such an event would be entitled to show that he has not violated the provisions of the Act. ”
22.6 Hari Rudra Bhavan Vs. The State of Rajasthan R.L.W.
1982 Raj 676 decided on 12.03.1982 wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court, after analyzing the testimonies of witnesses, observed as under:-
“ The prosecution could not succeed in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant demanded or accepted illegal gratification from Mangat Singh for payment of interest on his Jagir bonds. In the absence of any trust-worthy evidence from the side of the prosecution relating to demand and acceptance of bribe I am unable to up-hold the convictions and sentences of the appellant under Sec. 161, I.P.C. and Sec. 5(2) read with Sec. 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. ”
22.7 Ulfat Rai Arya Vs. State of Rajasthan 2007 CriLJ 1846
decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 07.12.2006, wherein the following observations were made:-
(16 of 19)
[CRLA-669/2000]
“A plain reading of the above provision makes it clear that when the accused accepted the gratification, the presumption immediately comes into play that he accepted it as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 161, IPC. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of T. Shankar Prasad's case, (2004 Cri LJ 884) (supra) held that it has to be presumed that the accused accepted the gratification as a motive or reward for doing or for bearing 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 of the Act is that during trial it should be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. In M. Narsinga Rao's case (supra) it was held that where the receipt of gratification was proved, the Court was under a legal obligation to presume that such gratification was accepted as a reward for doing the public duty.
In Gulam Mahmood A. Malek's case 1980CriLJ1096 (supra) it was held that while appreciating the evidence the background of the case should not be lost sight of it was also laid down that past conduct of the complainant should not be ignored. In Suraj Mai's case (supra) it has been observed that in a case of bribery, mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. In Kesaram's case (supra) it has been held that when accused at the earliest disclosed the fact of receiving Rs. 100/- against the money due in the brother of the complainant and the defence version has been supported by the prosecution witnesses, the appellant has succeeded in probising the defence. In Duraisami's case (supra), it was held that when the explanation given by the accused is found to be true and genuine then case set up by the defence has to be accepted. ”
(17 of 19) [CRLA-669/2000]
23.2 The presumption under Section 20 of the Act of 1988, operates against the accused, once certain foundational facts have been established by the prosecution for the same, and the burden of proof to rebut the same is upon the accused, and the presumption stands unless he rebuts the same to the satisfaction of the competent Court. The stage at which such rebuttal is made, if through an explanation/justification, is also taken into consideration by the competent Court.
23.3 The guilt of the accused must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt, as is a fundamental and basic principle of criminal jurisprudence.
24.1 The accused-appellant had a motive to demand illegal gratification of Rs. 100/- from the complainant, owing to the fact that the complainant had sought a copy of a jamabandi of a certain plot of land.
24.2 The accused-appellant when apprehended on the spot, during the trap proceedings, by the concerned officials, did not have any explanation or justification at the time. And that, at a subsequent stage, in his statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he stated that he is being falsely implicated as he refused to assist the complainant in filing a report against one Chandrabhan. The accused-appellant was silent, when asked about the illegal gratification at the first instance and offered no explanation for the same, at the time for the source of the money. The explanation so offered by the accused, was offered at belated stage, and could
(18 of 19)
[CRLA-669/2000]
not be corroborated by him through any evidence. However, no evidence was placed on the record before the learned Court below to that effect, to substantiate any such claim.
24.3 Witness testimony, including the complainant, the motbir witnesses and the concerned officers in the trap party, reveal that when the accused-appellant was apprehended on the spot, he did not offer any explanation, and was silent and stunned.
24.4 The above testimonies also reveal that the amount was kept in the pocket of the accused-appellant by a motbir witness, after which they washed their hands. The testimony of the complainant, Munshiram would further reveal that he gave the tainted currency to the accused-appellant, who then kept it on the table. There is no discrepancy in the statements of the witnesses, nor is there anything on the record to prove otherwise, and therefore the accused-appellant has not been able to sufficiently rebut the statutory presumption against him, as under Section 20 of the Act.
24.5 The factum of recovery has been sufficiently proven against the accused, as the tainted currency notes of Rs.100/-, in denominations of two notes of Rs. 50/- each, were recovered from the residence of the accused-appellant, kept under the eyeglasses of the appellant on the table, and upon testing of both his hands, it was found that he had in fact come into contact with the said currency as his hands turned a pinkish hue, and the same solution was sent for testing, and the F.S.L. report corroborated the same.
(19 of 19)
[CRLA-669/2000]
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
Skant/-
2 issues framed by the court
Was the conviction for demanding and receiving illegal gratification for supplying a land-record copy sustainable?
Had the accused rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Ram SinghRelied on¶35
State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Ram Singh (2000) 5 SCC 88 · Who else cites this
B. Noha Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.Relied on¶81
B. Noha Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. (2006) 12 SCC 277 · Who else cites this
State of A.P. v. Kommaraju Gopala Krishna MurthyRelied on¶81
State of A.P. v. Kommaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy (2000) 9 SCC 752 · Who else cites this
Guruviah & Ors. Vs. The StateRelied on¶86
Guruviah & Ors. Vs. The State (2019) 8 SCC 396 · Who else cites this
T. Shankar Prasad v. State of A.P.Relied on¶86
T. Shankar Prasad v. State of A.P. (2004) 3 SCC 753 · Who else cites this
State of Gujarat Vs. Bhalchandra Laxmishankar DaveRelied on¶89
State of Gujarat Vs. Bhalchandra Laxmishankar Dave (2021) 2 SCC 735 · Who else cites this
State of U.P. Vs. Ram AsreyRelied on¶96
State of U.P. Vs. Ram Asrey 1990 Supp (1) SCC 12 · Who else cites this
Ayyasami Vs. State of Tamil NaduRelied on¶111
Ayyasami Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1992) 1 SCC 304 · Who else cites this
Meena Vs. The State of MaharashtraRelied on¶117
Meena Vs. The State of Maharashtra (2000) 5 SCC 21 · Who else cites this
Seema Silk and Sarees and Ors. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and Ors.Relied on¶125
Seema Silk and Sarees and Ors. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and Ors. (2008) 5 SCC 580 · Who else cites this
Hari Rudra Bhavan Vs. The State of RajasthanRelied on¶127
Hari Rudra Bhavan Vs. The State of Rajasthan R.L.W. 1982 Raj 676
Ulfat Rai Arya Vs. State of RajasthanRelied on¶130
Ulfat Rai Arya Vs. State of Rajasthan 2007 CriLJ 1846 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Manohar Lal
State Of Raj.
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
