C.M. GIRISH BABU versus C.B.I. COCHIN, HIGH COURT OF KERALA

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 1021 · Decided: 24-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 1021 
' --i 
C.M. GIRISH BABU 
v. 
A 
C.B.I. COCHIN, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 
Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 2009 
FEBRUARY 24, 2009 
B 
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND 8. SUDERSHAN 
REDDY, . JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 
s. 7 - Prosecution for conspiring and committing offence c 
of demanding and accepting illegal gratification - Prime 
witness declared hostile - Conviction by trial court holding that 
demand and acceptance of the gratification proved - High 
Court convicting uls. 7 for accepting the gratification and 
' 
holding that demand not proved -
On appeal, held: D 
~ 
Acceptance of gratification by the accused also not proved 
beyond reasonable doubt - Therefore, acquitted. 
s. 20 - Presumption under - Nature of - Held: Such 
presumption is rebuttable and not inviolable. 
Evidence - Burden of proof- On accused against whom E 
presumption drawn uls. 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act _: 
.:...__..J. 
Nature of - Held: Burden of proof on such accused is not akin 
~-
to the burden placed on prosecution to prove the case beyond 
reasonable doubt - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s. 
F 
20. 
Appellant-accused, alongwith accused No. 1 was 
prosecuted for offences u/s. 1208 IPC r/w ss. 7 and 13 (2) 
r/w s. 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for 
having conspired and committing the act of demanding G 
·t 
and accepting gratification. Trial court convicted him u/ 
j. 
ss. 7 r/w s. 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Act and acquitted 
him u/s. 1208 IPC. High Court, in appeal, confirmed his 
conviction u/s 7 of the Act and acquitted him u/s 13 (1) (d) 
1021 
H 
1022 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
r/w s. 13 (2) of the Act, holding that demand of gratification 
was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, High 
Court acquitted accused No. 1 of all the charges. Hence 
the present appeal, by the appellant:-ac·cused. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The prosecutiOn failed in establishing the 
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt that the 
appellant received any gratification. The appellant has 
proved his case by the test of preponderance of 
C probability and accordingly it is concluded that the 
amount was not taken by the appellant as gratification. 
He was made to believe that amount paid to him was 
towards the repayment of loan taken by PW2 from 
Accused no. 1. The evidence of PW-2 about the demand 
D of bribe amount by the appellant is hearsay and therefore 
inadmissible. PW-10 also does not support the story 
narrated by PW-2. [Paras 10, 21 and 22] [1031-G; 1032-A] 
Sura} Mal vs. State (Delhi Admn.) 1979 (4) SCC 725; M. 
E 
Narsinga Rao VS. State of A.P 2001 (1) sec 691 - relied on. 
1.2 The burden of proof place·d upon the accused 
person against whom the presumption is made u/s. 20 of 
Prevention ·of Corruption Act is not akin to that of burden 
placed on the prosecution to prove the case beyond a 
F 
reasonable doubt. The· presumption to be drawn u/s. 20 
is not an inviolable one. The accused charged with the 
offence could rebut it either through the cross-
. exam.ination of the witnesses cited against him or by 
adducing reliable evidence. If the accused fails to disprove 
G the presumption the same would stick and then it can be 
held by the court that the prosecution has proved that 
the accused received the amount towards gratification. 
[Paras 19 and 20] [1030-F-H; 1031-A] 
H 
Jhangan vs. State 1966 (3) SCR 736 - relied on. 
C.M. GIRISH BABU V. 
1023 
C.B.I. COCHIN, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 
Case Law Reference 
1979 (4) sec 125 
2001 (1) sec 691 
1966 (3) SCR 736 
Relied on. 
Relied on. 
Relied on. 
Para 16 
Para 18 
Para 20 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 377 of 2009 
A 
B 
From the Judgement and Order dated 20.11.2007 of the 
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No. 285 C 
of 2002 
U.U. Lalit, K.V. Viswanathan, M. Girish Kumar, s: 
Raghunath, Avijeet K. Lala, Vijay Kumar, for the Appellant. 
Naresh Kaushik, Manish Kaushik, B. Krishna Prasad, for 
the Respondent. 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. 
1. Leave granted. 
2. The appellant along with Accused No.1 was tried for 
offences under Section 1208 of IPC read with Section 7 and 
D 
E 
13 (2) read with 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 
(hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") by Special Judge 
(SPE/CBl)-1, Ernakulam who by his judgment dated 30th March, 
F 
2002 convicted the appellant for the offence p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.