PC Act | Once It Is Proved Public Servant Received Gratification Beyond Legal Remuneration, Statutory Presumption Operates : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that once it has been proved that the accused has accepted any gratification other than the prescribed legal remuneration, the Court can raise the statutory presumption against the accused under Section 20 (Presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 that he accepted the gratification as a motive or reward under Section 7 for performing a public duty improperly or dishonestly. However, such a presumption is rebuttable, the Court clarified.

A division bench of Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Dipankar Datta was considering the case of the Appellant who had been convicted under Section 7 and Section 13 of the PC Act by a Special Court. His appeal was later dismissed by the High Court. The case against him was that in 1993, he demanded and accepted Rs. 1500/- as gratification while discharging his duty as a Sub Registrar.  

The Appellant contended that the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. Without proof of demand for illegal gratification there cannot be presumption against the accused under Section 20 of the PC Act, it was argued.

However, the Apex Court noted that the accused in his explanation under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 had accepted the receipt of the amount. The Court held since the prosecution had successfully proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had accepted the illegal gratification, the statutory presumption was against the accused under S.20 of the PC Act. The burden of proof had shifted to the accused and he failed to disprove the allegation of bribery, the Court observed.

“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. Therefore, the burden had shifted on the appellant to dispel the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the said Act, and prove that it was not accepted as a motive or reward for the performance of his public duty, which the appellant had failed to dispel.”

The Court observed that just because the accused denied the allegations against him, he cannot be granted the benefit of the doubt:

“It cannot be gainsaid that if the accused offers reasonable and probable explanation based on the evidence that the money was accepted by him other than as illegal gratification, the benefit of doubt should be granted to the accused. It is also true that the accused is not required to establish his defence beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution, and can establish the same on the preponderance of probability. However, the court cannot be oblivious to the statutory presumption permissible to be raised under Section 20 of PC Act with regard to the motive of the accused.”

It was also argued by the Appellant that since the complainant could not be examined because he died before the start of the trial, the allegation of demand of bribery was not proved by the prosecution. However, this argument did not find favour with the Court either. The Court held that even in case of the death of the complainant, the prosecution can rely on the complaint and other oral and documentary evidence to prove its case:

“It is well settled proposition of law that the death of the complainant or non-availability 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 non-availability of the complainant’ the Court said. Reference was made to the recent Constitution Bench judgment in Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD).

The appeal was hence dismissed.

Case Title: P. Sarangapani (Dead) Through Lr Paka Saroja V. State Of Andhra Pradesh

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 819

Click here to read/download judgment