MADHUKAR BHASKARRAO JOSHI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 475 · Decided: 09-11-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

MADHUKARBHASKARRAOJOSHI 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
NOVEMBER 9, 2000 
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Law: 
Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947-Section 4(/)-Gratification-
Payment to or acceptance by public servant-Held, once the premise of C 
payment or acceptance of gratification is established, inference drawn is that 
the said gratification was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing 
to do an official act-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Section 20(1). 
Section 5(2) proviso-Minimum sentence of imprisonment-Power of D 
court to impose less than the minimum sentence-Held, Parliament's resolve 
to meet corruption cases with a strong hand by fixing minimum sentence of 
imprisonment should not be defeated by reduction of sentence-Prevention 
of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(2). 
The Anti Corruption Squad, on information, -caught appellant-public E 
serv.ant red-handed receiving tainted currency notes from a private party. The 
appellant admitted the receipt of the amount but contended that the amount 
was received as a gift and that there was no gratification. The trial court 
convicted the appellant under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption 
Act, 1947 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a F 
fine of Rs. 5000. In appeal to the High Court, Single Judge confirmed the 
conviction of the trial court. However, the High Court reduced the 
imprisonment from one year to just one day. The public servant has preferred 
the present appeal. 
The appellant contended that legal presumption envisaged in Section 4 G 
of the Act could be drawn only on establishing that gratification was paid to 
or accepted by the public servant and not merely on possession of the tainted 
currency notes. If the conviction is upheld, the appellant contended that the 
court bas powers to reduce the sentence below the minimum of 'lne year 
prescribed in the datute for special reasons. 
475 
H 
476 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Once the prosecution established that gratification in any 
form - cash or kind - had been paid or accepted by a public servant, the court 
is under a legal compulsion to presume that the said gratification was paid or 
accepted as a motive or reward to do (or forbear from doing) any official act. 
B The only exception to the said rule is, when the gratification is so trivial that 
no inference of corruption could, in fairness, be drawn on a particular fact 
situation the court has no such legal compulsion to presume. Such a 
presumption was introduced in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 
through a later amendment. The said legal presumption was carried forward 
C into the successor enactment of 1988. (478-D-EJ 
1.2. The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the 
presumption is that there was payment or acceptance of gratification. Once 
the said premise is established, the inference to be drawn is that the said 
gratification was accepted "as motive or reward" for doing or forbearing to 
D do any official act. So the word 'gratification' need not be stretched to mean 
reward because reward is the outcome of the presumption, which the court 
has to draw on the factual premise that there was payment of gratification. 
This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions 
adjacent to each other like "gratification or any valuable thing". If acceptance 
of any valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as 
E motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, the word 
'gratification' must be treated in the context to mean any payment for giving 
satisfaction to the public servant who received it. (481-F-G-H; 482-AJ 
F 
Mahmoodkhan Mahboobkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 
10 sec 600, relied on. 
Black's Law Dictionary; Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of 
Current English, referred, to. 
2.1. In section 13(2) of the 1988 Act, there is no such' proviso as in 
G section 5(2) of the 1947 Act and no power whatsoever is given to the court to 
impose a sentence less than the minimum, even if there are special reasons 
for doing so. Parliament fixed the minimum sentence of imprisonment of one 
year even under the 1947 Act by making an amendment to it in 1958 for which 
the legislative language is apparently peremptory i.e. "shall not be less than 
one year". The proviso is in the form of a rare exception by giving

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