LexDHANVANTRAI BALWANTRAI DESAI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1 $.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
485
DHANV ANTRAi BALW ANTRAi DESAI
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
{JAFER bur.i:, K.
SuBBA RAo, N. RAJAGOPALA
AYYANGAR and J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.)
Criminal
Trial-Bribery-Rw,ipt
of
gratification-
Presumptio-Rebuttal
of-Onus-Plausible
explanation by
accused, if discharges onus-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
(II of 1947), a. 4.
The appellant was the Resident Engineer for Light Houses
and the complainant had ,a contract for reconstructing one of
the light houses.
For this construction the contractor used
water from a temple well and used a temple room for storing
cement. On the completion of the work the appellant asked
the contractor to carry out certain repairs to the temple but
he declined to do so. At the time of the payment of the final
bill the contractor paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the appellant
ai1d the amount was recovered fro1n him upon a search. The
explanation offered by the appellant was that the contractor
had given this sum of money for payment to the temple authori-
ties for repairs to the temple as he had himself been unable to
do so, He was convicted under s. 161 Indian Penal Code by
raising the
presumption under s. 4 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. The appellant contended that the explanation
given by him was both reasonable and probable and that
accordingly the presumption was rebutted.
Held, that the presumption under s. 4(1) had properly
been raised as the appellant had admittedly accepted gratifica-
tion other than legal remuneration. The appellant had failed
to rebut this presumption and was rightly convicted. The
burden of rebutting such a presumption resting upon the accused
was not as light as in the case of a presumption raised under
s. 114 Evidence Act. The burden was not discharged by merely
giving a reasonable and probable explanation. The accused
had to show that the explanation was a true one.
Unless
the explanation is supported by proof, the presumption cannot
be said to be rebutted.
C. I. Emden v. State of U. P., [1960] 2 S. C. R. 592,
Olla George Gfeller v. The King, A. I. R. (1943) P. C. 211 and
1962
1962
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
State of Madras v. A. VaidyaMtha Iyer, [1958] S. C. R. 580,
referred to.
Dhtn11111tlr•i ]hd.
wa11lrai Dwi
v.
CRIMINAL APPELLA'rE J UIUSDICTION : Criminal
St•t,.f Md•roshlr• Appeal No. 218 of 1960.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated August 3, 1960, of the Bombay High,
Court in Cr. A. No. 282 of 1960.
A.&. R. Chari, M. K. Rarnamurthi, R. K. Garg,
D. P. Singh, S. C. Agarwal, L. M. Atmaram
Bhukhanwal,a and K. R. Choudhri, for the appellant.
R,. L. Anand, D. R. Prem, R. H. Dhebar and
R. N. Saehthey, for the respondent.
1962. September 28. The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
MuiJWk.,, 1,
MuDHOLKAR, J.-In this appeal by special leave
from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay
affirming the conviction and sentences passed on the
appellant in respect of offences under s. 161, Indian
Penal Code and s. 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption· Act, 1947 (2 of 1947) read withs. 5(2)
thereof, the only point urged is that the presumption
raised against the appellant under s. 4 of the Preven-
tion of Corruption Act must be held to have been
rebutted by the explanation given by him inasmuch
~ that explanation was
both reasonable and
probable.
In order to appreciate the contention it is
necessary to state certain facts.
In the year 1954 the appellant was appointed
Resident Engineer for Light Houses and posted to
Bombay. He was due to retire in January, 1955 but
he was given extensions from time to time. The
complainant, M. M. Patel (who will hereafter be
referred to as the complainant) is a building contr.ac-
tor. It was proposed to re-construct a light house at
Tolkeshwar-
Point which is situated on the West
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
487
Coast, somewhere between Ratnagiri and Karwar.
The complainant submitted a tender for the construc-
tion on March 21, 1956. That tender was accepted
on June 30, 1956 and a work order was issued to
him. The general conditions governing the contract
are contained in the set of papers inviting tenders.
The complainant commenced the work in
November, 1956. It would appear that the overseer
supervising the work was not satisfied with the
manner in which the contractor was carrying on the
work.
As a result, in December, 1956, the appellant
had to bring the fact to tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.