BHUPESH DEB GUPTA (DEAD) BY L.RS. versus STATE OF TRIPURA

Citation: [1979] 1 S.C.R. 906 · Decided: 22-09-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASWANT SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
906 
BHUPESH DEB GUPTA (DEAD) BY L.RS. 
v. 
STATE OF TRIPURA 
September 22, 1978 
[JASWANT SINGH, P. s. KAILASAM AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Act II of 1974), Sections 211, 212, 213, 
214 and 215-Charge should not be vague and c•very particular required to be 
stated must be furnished so that the accused may not be misled and prciudiced. 
Penal Code, 1812-Section 161, ingredients of-Presuniptions under Section 
4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act-Scope of Section 4(1) of POCA. 
Bhupesh Deb Gupta, the original appellant \Vas tried, found guilty of the 
charge of receivmg Rs. 75/- from one Nikhil Chakraborty on or about 2-12-1961, 
convicted of an offence und!;':r Section 161 I.P .C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous. 
imprisonment for two months. The High Court in appeal, while confirming the 
conviction under section 161 I.P.C., reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 200/· 
only, taking into account the age and the long lapse of time between the date of 
offence and the date of conviction. During the pendency of the appeal by special 
leave the orii;inal appeUant died and therefore, his legal representative was grant-
ed leave to continue the appeal under Section 494(2) of the Crl.P.C. 
Allowing the appeal the Court, 
HELD : ( 1) Before the accused can be held guilty of an offence under 
Section 161 of the India'!l Penal Code, the following ingredients will have to be 
E 
proved: 
F 
G 
B 
1. The accused at the time of the offence was a public servant. 
2. That he accepted from some person a gratification. 
3. That such gratification was not a legal remuneration due to him. 
4. That the accused accepted the gratification as a motive or reward for 
-0ne of the following purposes : 
(a) doing or forbearing to do an official act; 
(b) showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to someone 
in the exercise of his official functions; 
(c) rendering or attempting 
to render, any service or disservice: 
to someone, with the Central or any State 
Government 
or 
Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or with any public 
servant. 
In the instant case, the fourth ingredient has not been fulfilled due to the 
defect in the charge framed as to the motive and also the non-examination of 
Nikhil Chakraborty as a witness on the ground "his whereabouts are not 
known". [909D-E] 
(2) A reading of Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 
Explanation to Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code would show that when it 
is proved that the accused has accept..i a gratification it shall be presumod 
• 
• 
' 
=-- -
B. D. GUPTA v. TRIPURA (Kailasam, J.) 
907 
unless the contrary is proved that he accepted it as a rnotive or reward such 
A 
&s is mentioned in Section 161. Section 161, therefore, provides presumption 
in favour of the prosecution. When once it is proved that the accused bad 
accepted an illegal gratification it shall be presumed that it is for one of the 
purposes in Section 161. The &planation to Section 161 makes it clear that a 
person who receives a gratification as a motive for doing what he does not 
intend to do, or a~ a reward for doing what has not done conies within the 
words, "a motive or reward for doing". 
[911D·F] 
B 
(3) The prosecution would be entitled to rely on the presumption 
under 
Section 4( 1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Explanat:on to Section 
161 I.P.C. if the necessary averments were made in the charge and the accused 
was given an opportunity to explain the circumstances against him and to meet 
che charge which the prosecution was trying to make out against the accused. 
[912A-B] 
C 
In the instant case; it cannot be said that the accused was not prejudiced by 
the frame of the charge, because (a) It is admitted that though the accused was 
a public servant in exercise of his official position, be could not secure· a job 
which he promised. [911H and 912H] 
(b) It is not the case of the pra.ecution that the accused received a grati-
fication but he had no intention to do what he promised. 
[912A] 
D 
(c) Nor was it alleged in the charge that the gratification was intended for 
being paid to a public servant. The prosecution CMC is that the gratification 
was for inducinl a public servant to show favour in this respect. [912A, C] 
( d) It is, no doubt, true that tho accused cannot complain of any defect in 
the charge if he is not prejudiced. Even in Section 313 
(old section 342) 
examination of the accused, the purpose for r

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