Adequacy Of Consideration Irrelevant To Draw Presumption U/S. 20 of Prevention Of Corruption Act: Supreme Court

The Court made this observation while setting aside an order of acquittal passed by the Karnataka High Court in a corruption case and held that no two views are possible in the matter once the aspects of ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of the bribe amount have been established beyond doubt.

The State had approached the Apex Court with an appeal against the final Judgment of the Karnataka High Court acquitting the respondent-accused from the charges punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1984.

A Three-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar & Justice R. Mahadevan said, “Therefore, it can safely be inferred that the respondent had received or accepted the currency notes on his own volition and the testimony of P.W.1 to P.W.5 including the testimony of P.W.10 and P.W.12 would go to show the demand, acceptance and recovery of the bribe amount from the possession of the respondent and the prosecution proved the charges framed against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt.”

AOR D. L. Chidananda represented the Appellant-State while AOR Anirudh Sanganeria represented the Respondent.

As per the facts of the case, the complainant (PW-1) working as a Second Division Assistant in a High School made a complaint alleging that the respondent, who was working as First Division Assistant in office of the Sub Treasury, demanded illegal gratification Rs 2,000 for passing the bill of encashment of Earned Leave Surrender for Rs 43,323 pertaining to the complainant and three non-teaching staff of his school. On enquiry, the complainant came to know that the respondent was in the habit of passing the bills only after receiving the bribe amount. The complainant also recorded the conversation between him and the respondent. A trap was laid in which the bribe amount of Rs.2,000 was recovered from the possession of the respondent.

The Bench noted that the prosecution obtained necessary sanction from the disciplinary authority as well as the competent authority as the respondent is a Government Servant. On a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Bench observed that the evidence of the witnesses along with Investigating Officers supported the case of the prosecution in entirety about ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of the bribe amount and also recovery of the same from the possession of the respondent.

The Bench also explained, “It is settled law that the two basic facts viz., ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of gratification have been proved, the presumption under Section 20 can be invoked to the effect that the gratification was demanded and accepted as a motive or reward as contemplated under Section 7 of the Act. However, such presumption is rebuttable. Even on the basis of the preponderance of probability, the accused can rebut the same.”

The prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, in respect of the ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of the bribe amount from the complainant and recovery of tainted currency notes from the possession of the respondent. The said operation was preceded by recording of the demand in the tape recorder. However, the respondent failed to rebut the presumption by disproving the case of the prosecution either in the cross examination of the prosecution side witnesses or by adducing material evidence that the receipt of Rs.2,000was not a bribe amount, but a legal fee or repayment.

“In the present case, the recovery of bribe amount from the respondent having been proved, the explanation offered by the respondent in the absence of any concrete material, is clearly of the wall. Therefore, it can safely be inferred that the respondent had received or accepted the currency notes on his own volition and the testimony of P.W.1 to P.W.5 including the testimony of P.W.10 and P.W.12 would go to show the demand, acceptance and recovery of the bribe amount from the possession of the respondent and the prosecution proved the charges framed against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt”, it added.

Noting that accused is a Government Servant, the Bench referred to Section 20 and explained that this provision gets attracted when it is proved that the public servant has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification other than legal remuneration and in that case, presumption is that it is the motive or reward for any of the acts covered under Section 7, 11 or 13(1)(b) of the Act.

It was further held that Section 20 would come into operation only when there is no nexus between the demand and the action performed or sought to be performed. But, when the fact of receipt of payment or an agreement to receive the gratification stands proved, there is a clear case of nexus or corroboration and the presumption itself is irrelevant.

“The presumption under Section 20 is similar to Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where the onus is on the accused to prove that he is not guilty of the offences charged. The first two limbs under subsections (1) and (2) of Section 13 make it clear that adequacy of consideration is irrelevant to draw the presumption. That apart, sub-section (3) only grants a discretion to Court to decline from drawing any presumption if the amount is so trivial so that such inference of corruption is not fairly possible in the facts of the case. Therefore, it is not a rule but an exception available to the Court to exercise its discretionary power in the facts and circumstances of the case”, it said while also adding, “In the present facts of the case, we are not inclined to exercise such discretion. As such, the judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the materials on record.”

“Once the aspects of ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of the bribe amount having been established beyond doubt, in our opinion, no two views are possible in the matter, and thus the approach adopted by the High Court is perverse and liable to be interfered with”, the Bench held.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench directed the trial Court to take necessary steps to secure the respondent and commit him in prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence and to recover the fine imposed on him.

Cause Title: The State of Karnataka v. Chandrasha [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 899]

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR D. L. Chidananda

Respondent: AOR Anirudh Sanganeria

Click here to read/ download Order