LexK.S. PANDURANGA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 4. S.C.R. 155
K.S. PANDURANGA
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal No. 373 of 2013)
MARCH 01, 2013
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s. 7, s.13(1)(d) rlw
A
B
s. 13(2) and s. 20 - Conviction of accused-appellant u(s. 7 and
u/s.13(1)(d) rlw s.13(2) - Justification of - Held: On facts, c
justified - Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is
a condition precedent for constituting an offence under the Act
- Statutory presumption uls.20 can be dislodged by the
accused by bringing on record some evidence, either direct
or circumstantial, that money was accepted other than for the o
motive or the reward - In the case at hand, explanation offered
by the appellant does not deserve any acceptance -
Considering the nature of his work, it is ·evident that appellant
was in a responsible position and capable of granting official
favour to the complainant - Defence story of appellant
E
borrowing money from DW1 and repaying Joan to the
complainant in presence of DW1 concocted and totally
improbable - Prosecution established the factum of recovery
from the appellant and also proved the demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification by appellant as motive/ F
reward for showing official favour to the complainant.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s. 20 - Statutory
presumption under - Can be dislodged by the accused by
bringing on record some evidence - Duty of the Court in this
regard - Held: When some explanation is offered, the court G
is obliged to consider the explanation uls. 20 - Consideration
of the explanation has to be on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability - It is not to be proven beyond
all reasonable doubt.
155
H
156
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 4 S.C.R.
A
Appeal - Appeal against conviction - Dismissed -
Dismissal challenged - Plea of accused-appellant that the
appellate Court (High Court) should not have decided the
appeal on merits in absence of the appellant's counsel -
Held: Not ·tenable :.... The court deciding the criminal appeal
8 is not bound to adjourn the matter if both the appellant or his
counseV lawyer are absent though the court may, as a matter
of prudence or indulgence, do so - It can dispose of the
appeal after perusing the record and judgment of the trial
court - It cannot be said that the ·court cannot decide a
C criminal appeal in absence of the counsel for the accused-
appellant.
Sentence I Sentencing - Appellant convicted and
sentenced by courts below under provisions of the Prevention
of Corruption Act for committing criminal act relating to
D demand and acceptance of bribe - Plea of appellant before
Supreme Court for reduction of the period of sentence to the
period already undergone in custody - Held: Not tenable -
Relevant statutory provisions under the Prevention of
Corruption Act provide for a minimum sentence - Where
E minimum sentence is provided, it is not appropriate to
exercise jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to
reduce the sentence on the ground of any mitigating factor -
However, regard being had to the age and ailments of the
accused-appellant, sentence of imprisonment u/s.13(1)(d) rl
F w s.13(2) reduced from two years (as imposed by High Court)
to the statutory minimum sentence of one year - Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 - s. 7 and s.13(1){d) rlw s.13(d) -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142.
The prosecution case was that the accused-appellant __
G had demanded and accepted illegal gratification of
Rs.5,000/- as motive I reward for showing official favour
to PW1-transport operator, i.e., allotting transport loads
and that thus, by means of corrupt and illegal means,
H
abused his position and obtained a pecuniary advantage.
K.S. PANDURANGA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
157
The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 7,
A
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. In appeal, the High Court confirmed
the conviction.
In the instant appeal, the conviction of the appellant
8
was challenged on merits as also on the ground that the
High Court could not have heard the appeal in absence
of the counsel for the accused-appellant and proceeded
to deliver the judgment.
Disposing of the appeal with modification in the C
sentence, the Court
HELD: 1.1. In Bani Singh case, a three Judge Bench
of the Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether
the High Court was justified in diExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.