LexM. SUNDERAMOORTHY versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
M. SUNDERAMOORTHY v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE APRIL 5, 1990 [V. RAMASWAMI AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.] Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947: Sections 4( 1), 5( l)(d) and 5(2)-Accused shown to have accepted money which was not legal remuneration-Proves guilty conduct-Rebuttal must be by explana- tion which must be true, not merely plausible. The appellant was an Accountant-cum-Headclerk in the Forest Training School, PW-3 the Principal of the training school, and PW-I the canteen contractor. The prosecution alleged that on the basis of a complaint made by the appellant that the food served in the canteen was substandard, PW-3 issued a show cause notice to PW-I, as to why the licence for the canteen should not be cancelled and that thereafter the appellant sent for PW-1 and demanded a bribe of Rs.100. As the appel· I ant pressed the demand from PW -1, the latter made a complaint to PW -6, the inspector, who arranged a trap. The trap was arranged. PW-1 handed over the money to the A B D appellant, who received the same. PW-6 conducted the phenolphthalein E test with reference to the fingers of the appellant. The test was positive. The currency notes were seized, and the appellant arreste.d charge- sheeted. The Trial Judge accepted the prosecution evidence, rejected the pleas of the appellant that PW -1 had· returned the amount of Rs.100 due to him, that there had been no demand for a bribe as there had been no occasion t"or doing so, and recorded conviction. The appellant appealed to the High Court and contended that there wa& no independent evidence regarding the demand, the messenger who had contacted PW -1 at the behest of the appellant had not been examined, the solitary evidence of PW-1 is insufficient and that the explanation offered by the appellant was probable and that there is no conclusive evidence to hold that the appellant was RUilty. The High Court took the view that the recovery of the currency notes from the appellant prove his guilty conduct, in view of the presumption aris- ing under section 4( 1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and that the same has not been rebutted and held that though the conviction under 335 F G H A B 336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 2 s.C.R. section 161 I.P.C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is to be maintained, no separate sentence need be awarded under section 161 I.P.C. It, accordingly, confirmed the conviction of the appellant ai:td sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 months. In the appeal to this court, it was contended that the appellant had a consistent case even from the earliest opp0~tunity, thafthe currency notes found in his possession was the money returned by Pw-1; and that the presumption, if any, arising under section 4 was rebutted, and the conviction cannot therefore be sustained. Dismissing the appeal, this Court C HELD: I. The appellant has not even by preponderance of proba- bility succeeded in rebutting the presumption under section 4(1) .of the Prevention of Corruption Act. [338C] 2. The Court has no choice once it is established that the accused person has received a sum of money which was not due to him as a legal D reumuneration, but to draw a presumption that the person received the money .as a motive of reward. However, it is open to that person to show that though that money was not due to him as legal remuneration, it was legally due to him in some other manner or that he received it under a transaction or an arrangement which was lawful. The explanation offered by the person should be a true one and not one which is merely E plausible:[3J9B-C; Fl F G Dhanvantrai Ba/wantrai Desai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1964 SC 575, referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 818 of 1979. From the Judgment & Order dated the 27.10.1979 of the Madras High Court in Crl. A. No. 4 of 1977. A.S. Nambiar and K.R. Nambiar for the Appellant. V. Krishnamurthy for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FATHIMA BEEVI, J. This appeal is directed against the judg- ment dated 27 .10.1979 of the High Court of Madras confirming the H conviction of the appellant under section 161, I.P .C. and under section ,l S. SUNDERAMOORTHY v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU IFATHIMABEEVI, J.)337 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A The appellant had been sentenced to unde
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.