B. HANUMANTHA RAO versus STATE OF A.P.

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 358 · Decided: 26-03-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.M. KASLIWAL · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B. HANUMANTHA RAO 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. 
MARCH 26, 1992 
B 
[N.M. KASLIWAL AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 : 
Sections 4 and 5-Clzarge of receiving iilegal gratificati01t"'-Trap 
C case-Huge amount of money found in the possession of accused-Explain-
ing the circumstances and proving innocence-Burden of proof-Whether 
shifted on accused. 
The petitioner; an Excise Sub-Inspector, was charged with the of· 
fence of accepting an amount of Rs. 50,000 as Hlegal gratification from an 
D 
arrack contractor. The defence of the petitioner was that the Contractor 
offered him the said amount towards arrears of rental, stating that he 
could not deposit the amount in Bank since the banking hours were over 
on that day. Despite his refusal to accept the same and requesting that it 
may be remitted in Bank the following day, the Contractor placed the cover 
E containing the said amount on the table of the petitionea-, it was claimed. 
The trEal court disbelieved the defence vei"sion and convicted the petitioner 
and sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine 
---'.. 
of Rs. 2000 and in default thereof, to undergo 2 months 'iimple imprison· 
ment. 
F 
On appeal, the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence 
G 
awarded by the trial court. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner 
has prefened the present special leave petition, raising the same grounds 
as were urged before the Courts below. 
Dismissing the special leave petition, this Court, 
HELD : 1.1. It remains undisputed that an amount of Rs. 50,000 was 
recovered from the possession of the accused, lying on a tea- poy in a room 
of office-cum-residence of the accused. In view of the fact that on washing 
the hands of the accused by a 5olution of sodium carbonate, the water 
H turned pink. it leaves no manner of dou~t that the amount of Rs. 50,000 
358 
HANUMANTHA RAO v. STATE 
359 
was touched and handled by the accused. Under the Excise Rules, the A 
accused-petitioner had no right or authority to accept any arrears of 
rentals of an excise contract. Even if the bank was cfosed as suggested by 
the accused, there was no question of accepting such amount by the 
accused as the rentals could ba·fe been deposited by the Contractor in the 
bank when it opened. Once the amount of Rs. 50,000 is found in the B 
possession of the accused, the burden shifts on him to explain the cir· 
cumstances to prove his innocence as contemplated under Section 4 of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act. [362C-E] 
1.2. Even if the statements of the prosecution witnesses who were 
declared hostile are excluded from consideration, it would not make any C 
difference in believing the substratum of the prosecution story. [362B, C] 
2. The circumstance that the Contractor was inimical and had an 
axe to grind inasmuch as be was instrumental in getting the petitioner 
transferred and such transfer was subsequently stayed by the Administra· 
tive Tribunal, has been considered by the High Court and it rightly took D 
the view that such circumstance cannot improbablise the demand and 
acceptance of the illegal gratification by the patitioner. The conviction is 
based on concurrent findings of fact and appreciation of evidence. Both 
the trial court as well as the High Court have considered the facts and 
circumstances of the case in detail and have piaced reliance on the E 
~ 
prosecution witnesses and there is no ground or justification to take a 
different view. 
[3~2F -H; 363A] 
3. There is no ground or justification to reduce the sentence awarded 
to the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Peti-
tion (Criminal) No. 2369 of 1991. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.11.1990 of the A.P. High 
Court in Crl. Appeal No. 1047/88. 
G 
P.P. Rao, B. Rajeshwar Rao and Vimal Dave for the Petitioner. 
K. Madhava Reddy and G. Prabhakas for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
360 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1992) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
KASLIWAL, J. This special leave petition (criminal) is directed 
against the judgment of the High Court of judicature Andhra Pradesh at 
Hyderabad dated 19.11.1990. The petitioner was convicted for offences 
punishable under Section 161 I.P.C. and Section 5 (1) (d) punishable under 
Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to 
B 
rigorous imprisonment for a period of t'No years and a fine of Rs. 2,000 
and in defau
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.