# [1974] 2 S.C.R. 579

- **Citation:** [1974] 2 S.C.R. 579
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974
- **Bench:** M. H. Beg, Y. v. C tiANDRACIIUD
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1974-2-s-c-r-579-6171
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

pm•mt/allofCom•ptioll Act, 194_7-S. 5(1) ((/)and s. 5(2) rtad with s. 16ll.P.C.-
Apptl/ant ltnd acrtpted Rs. 15/· w/uclt ~m no pori of hislt/IOI r<twtnuution-Th'
pmumprion Is that the apptllmrl acuptrd !Itt nmormt as a rCM·ard for clniug an officitd
· «t-Tire brrrtlrtt of proving tfrt cmrtrnr)' usts on tire opf'l/lonr.
The•pp:l!>nt had been convi<lcd unucr s . 5(1) (d) read with • 5(2) of the Pre-
..:ntion of Corruption Act, 1947, as also under s. 161 of the Pen~ I Code and " " '
sc•tenc:d to one ytor R.I. and a fine.
The question for con,idcrntion in this case was "hcthcr the coneurw1t findir.g
or,uilr recorded by the trial court and the High Court was in accordance with I•"
and the evidence in the c:lsc,
The app:llant was a clerk in the offiec o r the Loco-Foreman, Western R•il"'al:
Kotah, and he had 10 process nppli~:ltions for advances from the Provtdent FcnJ
Ae<:ount. It is alleged that the appellant while processing the complainant's arplication, ac_x:cpted a bribe or Rs. IS/· rrom the complainant in a hotel.
The •Fp:ll~nt adm1tted the receipt or the amount but contended that the amount was pa,d
to him by the complainant in part paym~nt or a loan or Rs. 30/- which b"d been
~d vanc:d by him to the complainant earlier. Both the trial Coun and tl1e H•:h
Court h:ld the •ccu•ed guilty,
Dismissina the appeal,
'-
HELD: (I) S0<.1ion 4(1) or the Preventio n or Corruption Act, 1947 provide~ to
lh<utent nutenal, thrlt where in any trial or an olfcnce pun,>hable under S«t1cn
16lofthe P.:nal Code, or under s. S(2)oflhe Act it is proved that nn ae<:used person
h:ls ~CC.::pted ••any &ratification (other than legal remuneration)", it shall be p~e:
uun:d,unte•s the contrary is proved that he acccpte<l that gratificauo.n as a momd
•r:eward s.uch as !s mentioned in Section (161), Penal Codo. !'he mollve or reffiwa! 1
. m:nlloned ID Sectton 161 is /JIItr olio ror doing or [or-bcanna tO do any 0 .,a
act. (mq
•
•
•
IU In lh: P~es:nt ca•e. the prosecution had prol'c <l thai the a ppellant h•d accqt~d
u,; ISJ. wh.ch clearly wns no part or his lcllal remuneration. The presumPIIO. •
.ttfort, ""'• tbat thcUJ>pellant oeccpteu the amount as a motive or rewafd for do,na
tn off-.::1-iJ act •
• ~~.~~dc0s. 4(1) of the Act, the burden of pro-.·inathc c.ontra• ~ mus~mt:r~ t
"i'<~
ut the appellant urged thot the presumPtion ur. er •·
nt w•s
~ld 01b;1Y_.if the pro;ecution estobli;hes in the first insta r.c~ that then~~~~ to the
cbr
"'"e than as legal remuneration. This contcn!lo~ is co . r . cu In<
s,..,io~rms or'· 4(1) and would render illusory, the prcsun,pt•00 ~"s'~~~~nt " 3'
~C<:·pt<d To east on the prosecution the burden of provtna that then ·s ·to t •k tt<
"'o;.. . by the ~ceuseu otherwise th~n by way of lea~ I rcotuncrn!IO 1 r br'~ If
this ~"
1~0 to provo th~t the amount was p3id and ao:ePted by woy ~
111 1\cn' ot
>II Oted belru~ DDture Of the burden restlna on the ~ros<eultOO, 0•0 p~~·;o~d ha,·c
to Pro•e tlu~0~\cd, bc~usenport from the presuu1pt1<'D t_~e
1p~s~~!~ acctpud as a
bribe It
t c money was accepted by the a~.J anu t ta 'r
a.r.ount by the
~d Is plain that irttteprosecution provcstheacceptance o the n form or
&111 kio~ndb the amount docs not represent legal remuneration !n a P~<d by him
••lllotive • t • accused must establish that the amount ;:s not .
8
.J'\.~D establish
lti.~sc by or rewurdsuch as is mentioned ins. 161 t.P.C. he ~~~~cd nut prove his
c:a,. beyonS'cponucrance of pro babilities. thai ls to saY, t at c
a reasonable d oubt. [581 cj
·
~ D lhu
s c 176~ rcrcrred to.
•
11°11 v. The StttU of Utrnr l'radulr AJ.R. 1966 · •
-·
lolhepr
h d ~ nceoftheappdWttwas
r.,..lllt1••·C'ieJltcase hoththecourtsluweheldth311 e er\ . wthattheamount
~ .. P<cponu~runce ofprobabllit!es ..-3s ;n favouro t e•·•e
580
SUPP.BMB COURT REPORTS
[1974] 2 s.c.R.
was acc~pted by the app:llant by way of bribe. Further, there was no particular
intimlcy b3tween the appellant and the complainant and it was not likely that the
appellant would give a loan to complainant w

## Text

B
0
}J
MAHESH PRASAD GUPTA
1'.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
.
December J, 1973
[M. H. BEG AND Y. v. C tiANDRACIIUD, JJ.]
pm•mt/allofCom•ptioll Act, 194_7-S. 5(1) ((/)and s. 5(2) rtad with s. 16ll.P.C.-
Apptl/ant ltnd acrtpted Rs. 15/· w/uclt ~m no pori of hislt/IOI r<twtnuution-Th'
pmumprion Is that the apptllmrl acuptrd !Itt nmormt as a rCM·ard for clniug an officitd
· «t-Tire brrrtlrtt of proving tfrt cmrtrnr)' usts on tire opf'l/lonr.
The•pp:l!>nt had been convi<lcd unucr s . 5(1) (d) read with • 5(2) of the Pre-
..:ntion of Corruption Act, 1947, as also under s. 161 of the Pen~ I Code and " " '
sc•tenc:d to one ytor R.I. and a fine.
The question for con,idcrntion in this case was "hcthcr the coneurw1t findir.g
or,uilr recorded by the trial court and the High Court was in accordance with I•"
and the evidence in the c:lsc,
The app:llant was a clerk in the offiec o r the Loco-Foreman, Western R•il"'al:
Kotah, and he had 10 process nppli~:ltions for advances from the Provtdent FcnJ
Ae<:ount. It is alleged that the appellant while processing the complainant's arplication, ac_x:cpted a bribe or Rs. IS/· rrom the complainant in a hotel.
The •Fp:ll~nt adm1tted the receipt or the amount but contended that the amount was pa,d
to him by the complainant in part paym~nt or a loan or Rs. 30/- which b"d been
~d vanc:d by him to the complainant earlier. Both the trial Coun and tl1e H•:h
Court h:ld the •ccu•ed guilty,
Dismissina the appeal,
'-
HELD: (I) S0<.1ion 4(1) or the Preventio n or Corruption Act, 1947 provide~ to
lh<utent nutenal, thrlt where in any trial or an olfcnce pun,>hable under S«t1cn
16lofthe P.:nal Code, or under s. S(2)oflhe Act it is proved that nn ae<:used person
h:ls ~CC.::pted ••any &ratification (other than legal remuneration)", it shall be p~e:
uun:d,unte•s the contrary is proved that he acccpte<l that gratificauo.n as a momd
•r:eward s.uch as !s mentioned in Section (161), Penal Codo. !'he mollve or reffiwa! 1
. m:nlloned ID Sectton 161 is /JIItr olio ror doing or [or-bcanna tO do any 0 .,a
act. (mq
•
•
•
IU In lh: P~es:nt ca•e. the prosecution had prol'c <l thai the a ppellant h•d accqt~d
u,; ISJ. wh.ch clearly wns no part or his lcllal remuneration. The presumPIIO. •
.ttfort, ""'• tbat thcUJ>pellant oeccpteu the amount as a motive or rewafd for do,na
tn off-.::1-iJ act •
• ~~.~~dc0s. 4(1) of the Act, the burden of pro-.·inathc c.ontra• ~ mus~mt:r~ t
"i'<~
ut the appellant urged thot the presumPtion ur. er •·
nt w•s
~ld 01b;1Y_.if the pro;ecution estobli;hes in the first insta r.c~ that then~~~~ to the
cbr
"'"e than as legal remuneration. This contcn!lo~ is co . r . cu In<
s,..,io~rms or'· 4(1) and would render illusory, the prcsun,pt•00 ~"s'~~~~nt " 3'
~C<:·pt<d To east on the prosecution the burden of provtna that then ·s ·to t •k tt<
"'o;.. . by the ~ceuseu otherwise th~n by way of lea~ I rcotuncrn!IO 1 r br'~ If
this ~"
1~0 to provo th~t the amount was p3id and ao:ePted by woy ~
111 1\cn' ot
>II Oted belru~ DDture Of the burden restlna on the ~ros<eultOO, 0•0 p~~·;o~d ha,·c
to Pro•e tlu~0~\cd, bc~usenport from the presuu1pt1<'D t_~e
1p~s~~!~ acctpud as a
bribe It
t c money was accepted by the a~.J anu t ta 'r
a.r.ount by the
~d Is plain that irttteprosecution provcstheacceptance o the n form or
&111 kio~ndb the amount docs not represent legal remuneration !n a P~<d by him
••lllotive • t • accused must establish that the amount ;:s not .
8
.J'\.~D establish
lti.~sc by or rewurdsuch as is mentioned ins. 161 t.P.C. he ~~~~cd nut prove his
c:a,. beyonS'cponucrance of pro babilities. thai ls to saY, t at c
a reasonable d oubt. [581 cj
·
~ D lhu
s c 176~ rcrcrred to.
•
11°11 v. The StttU of Utrnr l'radulr AJ.R. 1966 · •
-·
lolhepr
h d ~ nceoftheappdWttwas
r.,..lllt1••·C'ieJltcase hoththecourtsluweheldth311 e er\ . wthattheamount
~ .. P<cponu~runce ofprobabllit!es ..-3s ;n favouro t e•·•e
580
SUPP.BMB COURT REPORTS
[1974] 2 s.c.R.
was acc~pted by the app:llant by way of bribe. Further, there was no particular
intimlcy b3tween the appellant and the complainant and it was not likely that the
appellant would give a loan to complainant without a receipt and without interest.
Further, the complainant bore no enmity with the appellant and there is no evidence
to hold that the complainant was inftucnced by anybody into lodging a false case
against the appellant. As the appellant had failed to discharge his burden, the order
of conviction and sentence must be confirmed.
CRIMINAL .APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 130
of 1970.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the
6th July, 1970 of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur in S. B.
Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 1967.
Nuruddin Ahmad and Sobhagma/ Jain, for the appellant Maya Rao,
for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHANDRACHUD, J. In this appeal by special leave the question
for consideration is whether the concurrent finding of guilt recorded
by the learned Special Judge, Jaipur and the High Court of Rajasthan
is in accordance with law and the evidence in the case. The appellant
has been convicted under section 5(1) (d) read with section s (2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as also under section 161 of the
Penal Code. He has been sentenced the undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- on each count.
The complainant Umashanker is a cleaner in the Loco Shed, Kotah.
The appellant was working at· the material time, as a clerk in the office
of the Loco Foreman, Western Railway, Kotah, on.:: of his duties
being to process applications made by a certain class of employees
for advances from the Provident Fund Account. On April 8, 1966,
the complainant presented an application to the appellant asking for
an advance of Rs. 150/- from his Provident Fund Account. It is alleged
that the appellant refused to accept the application unless the complainant agreed to pay to him a gratification of Rs. 15/-. On April 10,
the complainant approached a Vigilance Officer Srinath Sharan Srivastava, and lodged a complaint before him that the appellant was demanding a bribe. On the 12th the Vigilance Officer took the complainant
to the office of the Special Police Establishment, Jaipur where Inspector
Ajmera asked the complainant to make one more attempt to present
the application to the appellant. Accordingly, the complainant resubmitted his application on the 13th when the appellant is alleged to
have renewed his demand for a bribe. A trap was thereafter laid and
it is alleged that the appellant accepted from the complainant a sum of
Rs. 15/- on the evening of the 13th at 'Meghraj Hotel'. The two currency
notes of Rs. 10/- and Sf· were treated with sodium carbonate powder
and the payment is alleged to have been witnessed by the motbirs Jagdish
Prasad Tiwari and Bhagwandas Makhija.
The appellant admitted the receipt of the amount but contended
that the amount was paid to him by the complainant ill part payment
of a loan of Rs. 30/-which had been advanced by him to the complainant
on November I, 1965. He stated that the complainant had not presented to him any application at all on April 8 and on the 13th the application was presented not to him but to the Head-clerk. According to
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
8
c
0
F
H
M. P, GUPTA V, RA.f.ASTHAN (Chandrachud, /,)
581
him the application of the 13th was processed by him in the ordinary
courSe and on the loan being recommended by the Loco Forman, the
application was duly forwllrded to the despatch clerk for obtaining the
sanction of the Divisional Superintendent's Office.
·
On the central issue whether the sum of Rs. 15/· had passed hands
from the complainant to the appellant, we have the admission of the
appellant himself but quite apart from that admission, there is clear
and convincing evidence to show that the appellant had· accepted the
money from the complainant. The evidence of the complain.'lnt Uma·
shanker (P. W. 4), Jagdish Prasad (P. w. 5) andBhagwandas Makhija
(P. W. 6) leave.s no doubt on this point.
Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, provides
to the extent material, that where in any trial of au offence punishable
under section 161 of the Penal Code or under section 5(2) of the Act,
it is proved that an accused person has accepted "any gratification
(other than legal remuneration)", it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that he accepted that ratification as n motive or reward
such as is mentioned in section 161, Penal Code. The motive or. reward
mentioned in section 161 is inter alia, for doing or forbearing to do any
o fticial act.
The prosecution having proved that the appellant had accepted
the sum of Rs. 1 S/·, which clearly is tto part of his legal remuneration,
the presumption must be raised under section 4(1) of the Act that the
appellant accepted the amount as a motive or reward for doing an
official act. The official act in the instant case was the processing of
the appellant's application for a loan from his Provident Fund Account.
Under section 4(1) of the Act, the burden of proving the contrary
must rest on the appellant. But learned counsel appearing on his he·
half urges that the presumption under section 4(1) can be raised ouly if
the prosecution establishes in the first instance that the amount was paid
otherwise than as legal remuneration. This. contention is contrary to
the clear terms of section 4(1) and would render illusory the presumption arising under the section. To ·cast on the prosecution the burden
of proving that the amount was accepted by the accused otherwise
than by way of legal remuneration is to ask the prosecution to prove
that the amount was paid and accepted by way of bribe. If this be the
true nature of the burden resting on the prosecution, no presumption
at all need be raised because aj)art from the presumption the prose·
cution would have to prove that the money was accepted by the accused
and that it was accepted as a bribe. It is plaitl that if the prosecution
proves the acceptance of the amount by the accused a11d the amo~mt
does not represent legal remuneration in any form or of any kind,
the accused must establish that the amount was not accepted by him
as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 161, Penal Code.
As held in V. D. Jhingan 1•s. The State of Uttar Prades!J(l), the accused
can establish his case by preponderance of probabilities, that is to say,
he need not prove his case beyond a reasonable do~1bt .
(.1) A.l.ll. 1966 S.C. 1762,
582
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1974] 2 S.C.R.
Both the courts have held that the defence of the appellant is false
and the preponderance of probabilities is in favour of the view that the
amount was accepted by the appellant by way of bribe. The learned
Special Judge described the loan theory propounded by the appellant
as false, while the High Court observed that the conclusion is irresistible that the theory is an after-thought. We are in agreement with
this fir1ding.
There was no particular intimacy between the appellant and the
complainant and it is not likely that the appellant would give a loan
to the complainant, without a receipt and without interest. A copy of
his monthly account (Ex. D-11) produced by the appellant shows that
on November 1, 1965, when the loan is alleged to have been given,
the appellant was himself. in indigent circumstances. In September,
1965, his expenses exceeded his income for which he had to sell some
silver lying in the house ; in October, he overstepped his income by
more than Rs. 100/- and in the crucial month of November he had to
take a loan of Rs. 80/- from the Railway Fund and to sell some wheat
lying in the house in order to meet his expenses. The debit entry of
Rs. 30/- in the name oft he complainant wa~, as held by the High Court,
evidently inserted after scoring off a writing against a sum of Rs. 30/-.
When Inspector Ajmera disclosed his identity to the appellant and
asked him to produce the money, he became nervous and begged for
mercy. He could not have forgotten that he was a creditor of the
complainant in the sum of Rs. 30/- and that the amount was received
by him in part payment of that Joan.
The complainant bore no enmity with the appellant and assuming,
as contended on behalf of the appellant, that there was some hostility
between the appellant and the Head-clerk, Chandra Prakash Saxena,
we ~e no_ foundation for the argument that Saxena influenced the complaHlant mto lodging a false case against the appellant.
As the appellant has failed to discharge his burden, the order of
conviction and sentence must b~ confirmed. Appellant will surrender
to his bail forthwith.
A.
B
c