# M. SUNDERAMOORTHY v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE

- **Citation:** [1990] 2 S.C.R. 335
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1990-04-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 818 of 1979
- **Bench:** V. Ramaswami, M. Fathima Beevi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-sunderamoorthy-v-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-through-inspector-of-police-10750
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947: Sections 4( 1), 5( l)(d) and
5(2)-Accused shown to have accepted money which was not legal
remuneration-Proves guilty conduct-Rebuttal must be by explanation which must be true, not merely plausible.
The appellant was an Accountant-cum-Headclerk in the Forest
Training School, PW-3 the Principal of the training school, and PW-I
the canteen contractor. The prosecution alleged that on the basis of a
complaint made by the appellant that the food served in the canteen was
substandard, PW-3 issued a show cause notice to PW-I, as to why the
licence for the canteen should not be cancelled and that thereafter the
appellant sent for PW-1 and demanded a bribe of Rs.100. As the appel·
I ant pressed the demand from PW -1, the latter made a complaint to
PW -6, the inspector, who arranged a trap.
The trap was arranged. PW-1 handed over the money to the
A
B
D
appellant, who received the same. PW-6 conducted the phenolphthalein
E
test with reference to the fingers of the appellant. The test was positive.
The currency notes were seized, and the appellant arreste.d chargesheeted.
The Trial Judge accepted the prosecution evidence, rejected the
pleas of the appellant that PW -1 had· returned the amount of Rs.100 due
to him, that there had been no demand for a bribe as there had been no
occasion t"or doing so, and recorded conviction.
The appellant appealed to the High Court and contended that
there wa& no independent evidence regarding the demand, the
messenger who had contacted PW -1 at the behest of the appellant had
not been examined, the solitary evidence of PW-1 is insufficient and
that the explanation offered by the appellant was probable and that there
is no conclusive evidence to hold that the appellant was RUilty. The
High Court took the view that the recovery of the currency notes from
the appellant prove his guilty conduct, in view of the presumption arising under section 4( 1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and that the
same has not been rebutted and held that though the conviction under
335
F
G
H
A
B
336
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1990] 2 s.C.R.
section 161 I.P.C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1947 is to be maintained, no separate sentence need be awarded under
section 161 I.P.C. It, accordingly, confirmed the conviction of the
appellant ai:td sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15
months.
In the appeal to this court, it was contended that the appellant had
a consistent case even from the earliest opp0~tunity, thafthe currency
notes found in his possession was the money returned by Pw-1; and that
the presumption, if any, arising under section 4 was rebutted, and the
conviction cannot therefore be sustained.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
C
HELD: I. The appellant has not even by preponderance of probability succeeded in rebutting the presumption under section 4(1) .of the
Prevention of Corruption Act. [338C]
2. The Court has no choice once it is established that the accused
person has received a sum of money which was not due to him as a legal
D reumuneration, but to draw a presumption that the person received the
money .as a motive of reward. However, it is open to that person to show
that though that money was not due to him as legal remuneration, it was
legally due to him in some other manner or that he received it under a
transaction or an arrangement which was lawful. The explanation
offered by the person should be a true one and not one which is merely
E
plausible:[3J9B-C; Fl
F
G
Dhanvantrai Ba/wantrai Desai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1964
SC 575, referred to.

## Text

M. SUNDERAMOORTHY
v.
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU THROUGH INSPECTOR
OF POLICE
APRIL 5, 1990
[V. RAMASWAMI AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947: Sections 4( 1), 5( l)(d) and
5(2)-Accused shown to have accepted money which was not legal
remuneration-Proves guilty conduct-Rebuttal must be by explanation which must be true, not merely plausible.
The appellant was an Accountant-cum-Headclerk in the Forest
Training School, PW-3 the Principal of the training school, and PW-I
the canteen contractor. The prosecution alleged that on the basis of a
complaint made by the appellant that the food served in the canteen was
substandard, PW-3 issued a show cause notice to PW-I, as to why the
licence for the canteen should not be cancelled and that thereafter the
appellant sent for PW-1 and demanded a bribe of Rs.100. As the appel·
I ant pressed the demand from PW -1, the latter made a complaint to
PW -6, the inspector, who arranged a trap.
The trap was arranged. PW-1 handed over the money to the
A
B
D
appellant, who received the same. PW-6 conducted the phenolphthalein
E
test with reference to the fingers of the appellant. The test was positive.
The currency notes were seized, and the appellant arreste.d chargesheeted.
The Trial Judge accepted the prosecution evidence, rejected the
pleas of the appellant that PW -1 had· returned the amount of Rs.100 due
to him, that there had been no demand for a bribe as there had been no
occasion t"or doing so, and recorded conviction.
The appellant appealed to the High Court and contended that
there wa& no independent evidence regarding the demand, the
messenger who had contacted PW -1 at the behest of the appellant had
not been examined, the solitary evidence of PW-1 is insufficient and
that the explanation offered by the appellant was probable and that there
is no conclusive evidence to hold that the appellant was RUilty. The
High Court took the view that the recovery of the currency notes from
the appellant prove his guilty conduct, in view of the presumption arising under section 4( 1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and that the
same has not been rebutted and held that though the conviction under
335
F
G
H
A
B
336
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1990] 2 s.C.R.
section 161 I.P.C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1947 is to be maintained, no separate sentence need be awarded under
section 161 I.P.C. It, accordingly, confirmed the conviction of the
appellant ai:td sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15
months.
In the appeal to this court, it was contended that the appellant had
a consistent case even from the earliest opp0~tunity, thafthe currency
notes found in his possession was the money returned by Pw-1; and that
the presumption, if any, arising under section 4 was rebutted, and the
conviction cannot therefore be sustained.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
C
HELD: I. The appellant has not even by preponderance of probability succeeded in rebutting the presumption under section 4(1) .of the
Prevention of Corruption Act. [338C]
2. The Court has no choice once it is established that the accused
person has received a sum of money which was not due to him as a legal
D reumuneration, but to draw a presumption that the person received the
money .as a motive of reward. However, it is open to that person to show
that though that money was not due to him as legal remuneration, it was
legally due to him in some other manner or that he received it under a
transaction or an arrangement which was lawful. The explanation
offered by the person should be a true one and not one which is merely
E
plausible:[3J9B-C; Fl
F
G
Dhanvantrai Ba/wantrai Desai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1964
SC 575, referred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 818 of 1979.
From the Judgment & Order dated the 27.10.1979 of the Madras
High Court in Crl. A. No. 4 of 1977.
A.S. Nambiar and K.R. Nambiar for the Appellant.
V. Krishnamurthy for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FATHIMA BEEVI, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27 .10.1979 of the High Court of Madras confirming the
H
conviction of the appellant under section 161, I.P .C. and under section
,l
S. SUNDERAMOORTHY v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU IFATHIMABEEVI, J.)337
5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
A
The appellant had been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 15 months
~
under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act with no separate sentence under section 161 I.P.C. The
brief facts of the case are as under.
The appellant, Sunderamoorthy was an Accountant-cum-HeadB
clerk in the Tamil Nadu Forest Training S.chool at Vaigai Dam. He
took charge of the office on 6.10.1975 and had been residing in a house
f"
opposite the training schoof PW-3, the Principal of the training school
issued Ex. P-2 show cause notice to the PW-1, Venkataswamy, the
canteen contractor, as to why his licence for running the canteen
should not be cancelled. This was on the basis of a complaint made by c
the appellant that the food served in the canteen was substandard. The
appellant had taken food in the canteen for two days and being disL__
satisfied discontinued the practice before the notice was issued. The
prosecution case is that the accused thereafter sent for PW-1, informed
him that he would help him in restoring the licence and demanded a
bribe of Rs.100. On 21.10.1975, the appellant is stated to have pressed
D
the demand to PW-1. The latter made a complaint to PW-6 who thereupon arranged a trap. As instructed, PW-1 was ready with ten rupees
currency notes. PW-6 after drawing up a mahazar in the' presence of
PW-2, Jaganathan, Assistant of the Office of the Special Tehsildar,
Usilampatti directed PW-1 to give the notes to the appellant. PW-1
....
handed over the money to the appellant who received the same. When
E
PW-1 emerged, PW-6 along with PW-2 confronted the appellant. The
appellant produced the currency notes. PW-6 conducted the phenolphthalein test with reference to the fingers of the appellant. The test
was positive, the currency notes were seized and the appellant
r
_arrested. PW-3, the Principal produced the concerned file relating to
show cause notice, from the house of the appellant on the same day.
F
Finally, the appellant was chargesheeted.
> ii.
At the trial, the prosecution witnesses supported the case. PW-I
affirmed the fact that the appellant· made the demand and had also
received the amount on 22.10.1975. The recovery of the currency
notes from the appellant was not challenged. The plea of the appellant
G
was that PW-1 had returned the amount due to him and there had been
no demand for a bribe as there had been no occasion for doing so. The
. "'
Trial Court accepted the l'rosecution evidence, rejected the plea of the
appellant and recorded the conviction. Before the High Court, the contentions of the appellant w~re that there was no independent evidence
regarding the demand, the messenger who had contacted PW-1 at the
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
338
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1990] 2 S.C.R.
behest of the appellant had not been examined, the solitary evidence
of PW-1 is-insufficient, the explanation offered by the appellant was
probable and there is no conclusive evidence to hold that the appellant,
was guilty. lt was also urged that the appellant being new in the office
could exert little influence on the Principal and the whole story is,
therefore improbable. These contentions did not find favour with the
High Court. It took the vir.w that the evidence of PW-I find corroboration in the testimony of PW-2 and 6 and the contemporary records.
The recovery of the currency notes from the appellant proves the
guilty conduct of the apJ?ellant in view of the presumption arising
under section 4( 1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act which has not
been rebutted. The decisions of the Court in State of Rajasthan v.
Mohamed Habeeb, [1973] Crl. L.J. 703; C.I. Emden v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, AIR 1960 SC 548 and Lohana Kantilal v. State, AIR. 1954
Saurashtra 121 were referred to. The High Court thought that though
the conviction under section 161 I.P.C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is to be maintained, no separate sentence need
be awarded under section 161 LP .C.
The appellant h~< reiterated the contentions before us. The
learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however, maintained that
the appellant had a consistent case even from the earliest opportunity
that the currency notes found in his possession was the money returned
by PW- I, the circumstances of the case would probablise this case of
the appellant and the presumption, if any, arising under section 4 is
rebutted and the conviction cannot therefore be sustained. PW-6 has
stated at the time of the seizure the explanation offered by the appellant was that PW- I had reiurned the loan and that he had given the
money for the Dipawali. The case that has been developed in the
course of the trial is not that of a Joan transaction but payment of an
advance of Rs. 125 in the canteen when the appellant started to take
food there. The case of Dipawali gift or return of a loan given to PW-I
has not been even suggested. It cannot, therefore, be said that there
had been consistent explanation for the appellant. PW-3, the Principal
has averred in unequivocal terms that Ex.P-2 memo had been issued on
·the basis of the complaint received from the appellant that on getting
the explanation from PW-1 he on 18.10.1975 itself passed orders and
closed the file. The order made was not disclosed to PW-I and till
22.10.1975, the file itself was kept by the appellant in his personal
custody. He had thereafter received the amount ofRs.100 from PW-1.
This conduct of the appellant is clearly inconsistent with the transaction of loan or return of money by PW-1.
,_
S. SUNDERAMOORTHYv. STATE OFTAMILNADU [FATHIMABEEVJ,J.J339
This Court observed in Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1964 SC 575 as under:
A
"Where any gratification (other than legal gratification) or
any valuable thing is proved to have been received by an
accused person the court is required to draw a presumption
that the person received that thing as a motive of reward
such as is mentioned in §ection 161, I.P.C. Therefore, the
Court has no choice in the matter, once it is established
that the accused person has received a sum of money which
was not due to him as a legal remuveration. Of course, it is
open to that person to show that though that money was
not due to him as legal remuneration it was legally due to
.him in some other manner or that he had received it under
a transaction or an arrangement which was lawful. The
burden resting on the accused person in such a case would
B
c
not be as light as it is where a presumption is raised under
section 114 of Evidence Act and cannot be held to be discharged merely by reason of the fact that the explanation
1J
offered by the accused is reasonable and probable. it must
further be shown that the exr..Janation is a true one. The
words 'unless the contrary is proved' which occur in this
provision make it clear that the presumption has to be
rebutted by 'proof' and not by a bare explanation which is
merely plausible. A fact is said to be proved when.its exisE
tence is directly established or when upon the material
before it the Court finds its existence to be so probable that
a reasonable man would act on the supposition that it
exists. Unless, therefore, the explanation is supported by
proof, the presumption created by the provision cannot be
said to be rebutted."
F
rll
On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances, we are
not satisfied that the appellant had even by preponderance of probability succeeded in rebutting the presumption.
The argument that clause (d) of section 5(1) of the Prevention of
G
Corruption Act is not attracted on the proved facts is also not
impressive.
We find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.
N,V.K.
Appeal dismissed.
H