M.NARSINGA RAO versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 584 · Decided: 12-12-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M. NARSINGA RAO 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
DECEMBER 12, 2000 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS, U.C. BANERJEE AND R.P. SETHI. JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section JU legal presumption 
Held. can be drawn if it is proved that the accused has accepted or agreed 
C to accept any gratification, the same need not be proved through direct 
evidence- -Inferences drawn from facts produced or proved are akin to 
presumptions in law Evidence Act, 1872 Section 114. 
D 
Words and Phrases - 'Shall be presumed' and 'proof' Meaning of--ln 
the context of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -Section 20(/). 
Appellant was charged for offences under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with 
Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, being caught red handed 
in a trap arranged by the officials of the Anti Corruption Bureau. 
Evidence of prosecution started after four years. PWI, from whom the 
E bribe was demanded and PW2, who was witness for the trap turned hostile 
and PWI for the first time stated that he had acted at the behest of K. Appellant 
in his written statement submitted that K bore grudge against him and 
therefore had organised false trap against him employing PWI and PW2. 
F 
Trial Court held that PWI and PW2 were won over by the appellant and 
hence convicted the appellant for the offence and ordered the two witnesses to 
be prosecuted for perjury. High Court concurred with the judgment of the 
Trial Court holding that from the rest of the evidence it was established that 
the appellant had accepted the amount and that gave rise to a presumption 
u/s 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act that he accepted the same as illegal 
G gratification. 
H 
In appeal to this court, the appellant contented that the presumption 
under Section 20 of the Act could be drawn only when the prosecution 
succeeded in establishing with direct evidence that the delinquent public 
servant accepted or obtained gratification and that premise cannot depend on 
584 
\ 
M.!'J. RAO v. STATE OF AN'.lHRA PRADESH 
585 
an inference for affording foundation for the legal presumption envisaged in A 
Section 20 of Act; and that handling over of some currency notes to a public 
servant is not enough to make it acceftance of gratification. It is the duty of 
the prosecution to prove that what was paid amounted to gratification. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. For the purpose of reaching one conclusion the Court can 
rely on a factual presumption. Unless the presumption is di~proved or dispelled 
or rebutted, the Court can treat the presumption as tantamounting to proof. It 
may be unsafe to use that presumption to draw yet another discretionary 
presumption unless there is a statutory compulsion. 1592-EI 
Suresh Budhurmul Ku/univ. S1a1e ofMuhurushlru. 11998) 7 SCC 337, 
relied on. 
1.2. From the proved facts, the court can legitimately draw a presumption 
that appellant received or accepted the said currency notes on his own volition. 
B 
c 
Of course, the said presumption is not an inviolable one, as the appellant could D 
rebut it either through cross-examination of the witnesses cited against him 
· or by adducing reliable evidence. But if the appellant fails to disprove the 
presumption the same would stick and then it can be held by the Court that 
the prosecution has proved that appellant received the said amount. [593-D] 
Raghubir Singh v. Slale ofHaryana, ) 1994] 4 sec 560 and Hazrilal v. E 
Delhi (Delhi Adminis1ra1ion), ) 1980] 2 SCC 390, relied on. 
1.3. When Section 20(1) deals with legal presumption, it is to be 
understood as in terrorum i.e. in tone of a command that it has to be presumed 
that the accused accepted the gratification as a motive or reward for doing or F 
forbearing to do any official act etc., if the condition envisaged in the former 
part of the section is satisfied. The only condition for drawing such a legal 
presumption under Section 20 is that during trial it should be proved that the 
accused has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. The section does 
not say that the said condition should be satisfied through direct evidence. Its 
only requirement is that it must be proved that the accused has accepted or G 
agreed to accept gratification. Direct evidence is one of the modes through 
which a fact can be proved. But that is not the only mode envisaged in the 
Evidence Act. !591-C, DJ 
Sila Ram v. Stale ufRajusthun, )1975) 2 SCC 227 and Sura} Mui v. State 
tflelhi AJminislraliun). 11979) 2 sec 725, d

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