Any Gratification When Proved To Have Been Accepted By Accused, Courts Are Entitled To Raise Presumption U/s. 20 Of PCA That It Was Accepted With Dishonest Motive: SC
|The Supreme Court has in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act observed that any gratification when proved to have been accepted by the accused, the Court are entitled to raise presumption under Section 20 of the Act that it was accepted with a dishonest motive.
The Court observed, "...once the undue advantage i.e., any gratification whatever, other than the legal remuneration is proved to have been accepted by the accused, the Court is entitled to raise the presumption under Section 20 that he accepted the undue advantage as a motive or reward under Section 7 for performing or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly. No doubt that such presumption is rebuttable."
The Court dismissed a Criminal Appeal filed by the Appellant challenging the conviction order and sentencing under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
The Court noted that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the amount accepted by the Appellant was illegal gratification. Therefore, the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act was rightly raised. The Bench observed that the Appellant failed to successfully dispute the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act.
“Both the courts have appreciated the evidence on record threadbare in the right perspective and have found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act. We do not see any valid ground to interfere with the well considered findings recorded by both the courts below”, the Bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Dipankar Datta observed.
Advocate D. Ramakrishna Reddy appeared for the Appellant, and Advocate Sri Harsha Peechara appeared for the Respondent.
A Criminal Appeal was filed challenging the judgment and order of the High Court whereby the Court affirmed the conviction and sentencing order of the Special Court against the Appellant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act. The Appellant passed away during the pendency of the case and therefore, his wife represented him. The Appellant argued that since the complainant had passed away before the trial, the prosecution could not prove the allegation of demanding a bribe.
The Court noted that the arguments made by the Appellant had no substance. The Bench reiterated that the death or unavailability of the Complainant during the Trial is not a reason to acquit the accused. The prosecution can still provide evidence to prove the complaint's contents and other relevant facts.
The Bench noted, “It is well settled proposition of law that the death of the complainant or nonavailability of the complainant at the time of trial could be said to be fatal to the case of prosecution, nor could it be said to be a ground to acquit the accused. It is always open for the prosecution to prove the contents of the complaint and other facts in issue by leading other oral or documentary evidence, in case of death of or nonavailability of the complainant”.
Furthermore, the Bench noted that the Accused/Appellant admitted to receiving the alleged amount in the statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Therefore, the Bench observed that the Trial Court had to examine the prosecution's evidence in light of this admission to determine if the money was an illegal gratification or legal payment. If the accused reasonably explains that the money was not an illegal gratification, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. The Court noted that the accused does not need to prove their defense beyond a reasonable doubt, but they can establish it based on the preponderance of probability. However, the Court noted that the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act regarding the Accused's motive could not be ignored.
The Bench asserted that the prosecution proved the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings through the testimony of relevant prosecution witnesses. The Court observed that both courts concluded that the Appellant knowingly accepted tainted currency and that it was recovered from him. The Court held that the burden shifted to the accused to prove that accepting the money was not a reward or motive for performing their public duty.
The Bench observed, “In the instant case the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings were duly proved by the prosecution by examining the concerned witnesses, who had duly supported the case of prosecution. Both the courts below have recorded the findings that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt the conscious acceptance of the tainted currency by the accused and also the recovery of tainted currency from the appellant”.
The Bench noted that the Appellant did not successfully refute the presumption stated in Section 20 of the Act. The Appellant’s explanation did not align with the statement given by the complainant in Section 164 of CrPC. The High Court additionally determined that the accused's defense, which argued that the acceptance of the corrupted currency was for audit fees of the Society, lacked evidence to support it since there was no proof that the funds originated from the Society.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: P. Sarangapani (Dead) Through LR Paka Saroja v State of Andhra Pradesh (2023 INSC 844)