C.K. DAMODARAN NAIR versus GOVT. OF INDIA

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 107 · Decided: 08-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE, S.P. KURDUKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
C.K. DAMODARAN NAIR 
A 
v. 
GOVT. OF INDIA 
JANUARY 8, 1997 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Climinal Law : 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 161-0ffence unde1-Ingredients 
of-Presumption under S.4 of-Prevention of comtption-Act-Raising C 
of-Held: Offence under S.161 !PC could be established by proof of either 
"acceptance" or "obtainment" of illegal gratification-Proof of plior demand 
not essential---"Acceptance" implied consenting mind which could be proved 
by circumstances S!ll'l'Ollllding transaction without proof of p1ior agree-
ment-Prevention of Comtption Act, 1947, Ss. 4(1) and 5(1)(d). 
Section 161- accused obtained money pursuant to demand made by 
him earlie1-Accused took the plea that complainant forcibly tlmtst money 
into his pocket-Held: accused obtained money by abusing his official posi-
tion-Plea of accused not acceptable-Therefore, his conviction upheld. 
D 
Prevention of Comtption Act, 1947: Section 5( J)( d}-Offence E 
unde1-Requisites of-Held: demand or request from public se1vant con-
cerned was a primary requisite-Mere proof of obtainment not suffi-
cient-Hence conviction of accused under S.5 (2) was well melited. 
Words and Phrases: ''Acceptance''---Meaning of-In the context of S.161 
of the Indian Penal Code 1860. 
"Obtain''---Meaning of-In the context of S.5(1)(d) of the Prevention of 
Com1ptio11 Act, 1947. 
F 
The appellant was acquitted by the Special Judge for offences under G 
Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5(2) read with 
Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. But the High 
Court set aside the acquittal of the appellant and convicted him for the 
above offences. Hence this appeal. 
According to the prosecution, the appellant visited the Hospital and H 
107 
108 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
demanded from the Assistant Manager, PW-9, a sum of money for exempt-
ing the Hospital in question from its liability to pay statutory provident 
fund contributions. For making such illegal demand, PW-1 complained 
against the appellant to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The 
CBI then decided to arrange a trap to nab the appellant red-handed. 
B 
Marked currency notes were handed over by the complainant to the 
accused in the presence of two independent witnesses. The appellant 
accepted the currency notes and after counting kept them in the right 
pocket of his trousers. 
On behalf of the appeDant it was contended that the prosecution had 
C failed to prove that the appellant had demanded illegal gratification which 
is an essential ingredient of the offence in question and, therefore, recovery 
of the currency notes from the appellant by itself could not have been a 
ground for draWing the statutory presumption under Section 4(1) of the 
Act; and that the complainant had forcibly thrust the currency notes in 
the trouser's pocket of the appellant. 
D 
E 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the instant case to sustain the charge under Section 
161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the appellant the prosecution 
was required to prove that 
(i) the appellant was a public servant at the material time; 
(ii) the appellant accepted or obtained from PW-9 a gratification 
other than legal remuneration; and 
F 
(iii) the gratification was for exempting the Hospital in question 
from its liability to pay statutory providen~ fund contributions. [114-D-E] 
1.2. From a combined reading of Section 161 of the IPC and Section 
4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 it is evident that if the 
prosecution has succeeded in proving that the appellant was a public 
G servant at the material time and that he had 'accepted' or 'obtained' the 
money as gratification not only the first two ingredients of the former 
would stand proved but also the third, in view of the presumption under 
the latter which the Court is bound to draw unless, of course, the appellant, 
in his turn, has succeeded in rebutting that presumption. 'Accept' means 
H to take or receive With a 'consenting mind'. Obviously such a 'consent' can 
t
) 
C.K.D. NAIR v. GOVT. OF INDIA 
109 
1· 
be established not only by leading evidence of prior agreement but also A 
from the circumstances surrounding the transaction itself without proof 
of such prior agreement. If an acquaintance of a public servant in expec-
tation and with the hope that in future, if need be, he would be able to get 
some official favour from him, voluntarily offers any gratificatio

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