GURUVIAH versus THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 746 · Decided: 20-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
746
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
GURUVIAH
v.
THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No. 1208 of 2019)
AUGUST 20, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7, 13(1)(d), 13(2)
and 12 – Appellants (accused nos. 2 & 3) were village assistants in
the office of the village administrative officer – PW-2 lodged
complaint that the village administrative officer-since deceased
(accused no.1) demanded Rs.600/- for signing the necessary papers
to facilitate transfer of electric connection in his name – Village
administrative officer came to the office along with accused no.3
while accused no.2 waited at the office for both of them – Money
was handed over to accused no.2 on the instructions of the village
administrative officer – Appellants apprehended by the trap officials
immediately thereafter and the money was recovered – Appellants
convicted u/ss. 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 12, however acquitted u/s.7 of
the 1988 Act and s.109, IPC – On appeal, held: Significance of
accused no.2 counting the money before handing it over to accused
no.3 who put it in his shirt pocket, lay in the confirmation that the
amount was in consonance with the demand, of which naturally the
appellants were aware of – It was only after the money as demanded
was paid that the accused no.3 filled up the form for transfer of the
electric connection in the name of PW-2 and placed it before the
village administrative officer who then signed and put his seal on
the same – PW-10, Inspector Crime Branch proved the trap
proceedings and recovery – Defence of the appellants that they
received the money in the bonafide belief that it was towards arrears
of land tax is belied by the fact that land tax for the period in question
had already been cancelled by the State Government – Taking of a
false defence is a further aggravating circumstance against the
appellants –  Evidently the appellants were in league with the village
administrative officer – Prosecution was therefore able to establish
prima facie case against the appellants – Acquittal of the appellants
u/s.7 of the 1988 Act, in the facts of the present case, is
   [2019] 10 S.C.R. 746
746
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
747
inconsequential and cannot negate the presumption drawn against
them – Fact that PW-2 in his chief may not have named accused
no.2 is inconsequential – Appellants to surrender forthwith for
serving out their remaining sentence – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.7,
109.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.20 – Presumption
under – Discussed.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1 The significance of accused no.2 counting the
money before handing it over to accused no.3 who put it in his
shirt pocket, lay in the confirmation that the amount was in
consonance with the demand, of which naturally the appellants
were therefore aware of. It was only after the money as demanded
was paid that accused no.3 filled up the form for transfer of the
electric connection in the name of P.W.2 and placed it before the
village administrative officer who then signed and put his seal on
the same.  At this moment, they were apprehended.  The money
was handed over to the trap officials by the village administrative
officer after taking it back from accused no.3. Their hands were
dipped in the sodium carbonate solution, including the shirt of
the third accused, leading to change of colour of the solution
confirming that they were the same notes which were given to
P.W.2 by the trap officials. P.W.1 proved the sanction for the
prosecution. The mere absence of any specific statement by P.W.2
and the trap witness P.W.4 of any demand and acceptance by the
appellants, attributing the same only to the village administrative
officer can be of no avail to the appellants. P.W.10, Inspector
Crime Branch proved the trap proceedings and recovery. The
defence of the appellants that they had received the money in
the bonafide belief that it was towards arrears of land tax is belied
by the fact that land tax for the period in question had already
been cancelled by the State Government. The taking of a false
defence is a further aggravating circumstance against the
appellants. The second contention that it is improbable that a
demand of Rs.600/- would have been made for a subsidy benefit
of Rs.625/- only, ignores the fact that it entitled P.W.2 for a subsidy
of Rs.625/- every six months.  Evidently the appellants were in
GURUVIAH v. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE
I

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