B. JAYARAJ versus STATE OF A.P.

Citation: [2014] 4 S.C.R. 554 · Decided: 28-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014) 4 S.C.R. 554 
A 
8. JAYARAJ 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 696 of 2014) 
MARCH 28, 2014 
B 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJAN GOGOi AND 
N.V. RAMANA, JJ.) 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -
ss. 7 and 
c 13(1 )(d)(i)(ii) r/w s. 13(2) and 20 -Complainant had a fair price 
shop - He alleged that appellant, Manda/ Revenue officer, 
demanded bribe from him for release of PDS items -
Conviction of appellant u/ss. 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) r/w s.13(2) 
by the Courts below - Justification - Held: Not justified - PW-
D 2, the complainant, did not support the prosecution case 
insofar as demand of illegal gratification by appellant is 
concerned - Prosecution did not examine any other witness, 
present at the time when the money was allegedly handed 
over to appellant by the complainant, to prove that the same 
E was pursuant to any demand made by the appellant - When 
the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in 
the initial complaint, and there is no other evidence to prove 
that appellant had made any demand, the evidence of PW-1 
(panch witness) and the contents of the initial complaint 
F cannot be relied upon - Only other material available is 
recovery of tainted currency notes from possession of 
appellant - However, mere possession and recovery of 
currency notes from appellant without proof of demand will not 
bring home the offence uls. 7 - Proof of acceptance of illegal 
gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand - As 
G the same is lacking, primary facts on the basis of which legal 
presumption u/s.20 can be drawn against the appellant are 
wholly absent. 
H 
554 
B. JAYARAJ v. STATE OF A.P. 
555 
The appellant was working as a Mandal Revenue 
A 
officer (MRO). PW-2 had a fair price shop. The 
prosecution case was that PW-2 allegedly approached 
the appellant for release of essential commodities against 
his shop whereafter he demanded bribe to issue the 
release order. The Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, 
B 
City Civil Court, convicted the appellant under Sections 
7 and 13 (1 )(d)(i)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The conviction was 
affirmed by the High Court, and therefore the present 
appeal. 
c 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. The conviction of the appellant cannot be 
sustained either under Section 7 or under 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) 
read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption 
D 
Act, 1988. [Para 10] [561-F-G] 
2. PW-2, the complainant, did not support the 
prosecution case. He disowned making the complaint 
(Exbt.P-11) and had stated in his deposition that the 
E 
amount of Rs.250/- was paid by him to the appellant with 
a request that the same may be deposited with the bank 
as fee for the renewal of his licence. He was, therefore, 
declared hostile. However, PW-1 (panch witness) had 
testified that after being summoned by LW-9, on 
13.11.1995, the contents of Exhibit P-11 (complaint) filed 
F 
by PW-2 were explained to him in the presence of the 
complainant who acknowledged the fact that the 
appellant had demanded a sum of Rs.250/- as illegal 
gratification for release of the PDS items. It is on the 
aforesaid basis that the liability of the accused-appellant G 
for commission of the offences alleged was held to be 
proved. In doing so, the trial court as well as the High 
Court also relied on the provisions of Section 20 of the 
Act to draw a legal presumption as regards the motive or 
reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act after 
H 
556 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 4 S.C.R. 
A finding acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused-
appellant. [Para 6) [559-F-H; 560-A-C] 
3. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is concerned, it is a 
8 settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification 
is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere 
recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence 
under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable 
doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money 
C knowing it to be a bribe. [Para 7) [560-C-E] 
C.M. Sharma vs. State of A.P. (2010) 15 SCC 1: 2010 
(13) SCR 1105 and C.M. Girish Babu vs. C.B.I (2009) 3 SCC 
779: 2009 (2) SCR 1021 - relied on. 
0 
4. PW2 did not support the prosecution case insofar 
as demand by the accused is concerned. The 
prosecution has not examined any other witness, present 
at the time when the money was allegedly handed over 
to the accused by the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.