LexMAHESH PRASAD GUPTA versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B 0 }J MAHESH PRASAD GUPTA 1'. STATE OF RAJASTHAN . December J, 1973 [M. H. BEG AND Y. v. C tiANDRACIIUD, JJ.] pm•mt/allofCom•ptioll Act, 194_7-S. 5(1) ((/)and s. 5(2) rtad with s. 16ll.P.C.- Apptl/ant ltnd acrtpted Rs. 15/· w/uclt ~m no pori of hislt/IOI r<twtnuution-Th' pmumprion Is that the apptllmrl acuptrd !Itt nmormt as a rCM·ard for clniug an officitd · «t-Tire brrrtlrtt of proving tfrt cmrtrnr)' usts on tire opf'l/lonr. The•pp:l!>nt had been convi<lcd unucr s . 5(1) (d) read with • 5(2) of the Pre- ..:ntion of Corruption Act, 1947, as also under s. 161 of the Pen~ I Code and " " ' sc•tenc:d to one ytor R.I. and a fine. The question for con,idcrntion in this case was "hcthcr the coneurw1t findir.g or,uilr recorded by the trial court and the High Court was in accordance with I•" and the evidence in the c:lsc, The app:llant was a clerk in the offiec o r the Loco-Foreman, Western R•il"'al: Kotah, and he had 10 process nppli~:ltions for advances from the Provtdent FcnJ Ae<:ount. It is alleged that the appellant while processing the complainant's ar- plication, ac_x:cpted a bribe or Rs. IS/· rrom the complainant in a hotel. The •F- p:ll~nt adm1tted the receipt or the amount but contended that the amount was pa,d to him by the complainant in part paym~nt or a loan or Rs. 30/- which b"d been ~d vanc:d by him to the complainant earlier. Both the trial Coun and tl1e H•:h Court h:ld the •ccu•ed guilty, Dismissina the appeal, '- HELD: (I) S0<.1ion 4(1) or the Preventio n or Corruption Act, 1947 provide~ to lh<utent nutenal, thrlt where in any trial or an olfcnce pun,>hable under S«t1cn 16lofthe P.:nal Code, or under s. S(2)oflhe Act it is proved that nn ae<:used person h:ls ~CC.::pted ••any &ratification (other than legal remuneration)", it shall be p~e: uun:d,unte•s the contrary is proved that he acccpte<l that gratificauo.n as a momd •r:eward s.uch as !s mentioned in Section (161), Penal Codo. !'he mollve or reffiwa! 1 . m:nlloned ID Sectton 161 is /JIItr olio ror doing or [or-bcanna tO do any 0 .,a act. (mq • • • IU In lh: P~es:nt ca•e. the prosecution had prol'c <l thai the a ppellant h•d accqt~d u,; ISJ. wh.ch clearly wns no part or his lcllal remuneration. The presumPIIO. • .ttfort, ""'• tbat thcUJ>pellant oeccpteu the amount as a motive or rewafd for do,na tn off-.::1-iJ act • • ~~.~~dc0s. 4(1) of the Act, the burden of pro-.·inathc c.ontra• ~ mus~mt:r~ t "i'<~ ut the appellant urged thot the presumPtion ur. er •· nt w•s ~ld 01b;1Y_.if the pro;ecution estobli;hes in the first insta r.c~ that then~~~~ to the cbr "'"e than as legal remuneration. This contcn!lo~ is co . r . cu In< s,..,io~rms or'· 4(1) and would render illusory, the prcsun,pt•00 ~"s'~~~~nt " 3' ~C<:·pt<d To east on the prosecution the burden of provtna that then ·s ·to t •k tt< "'o;.. . by the ~ceuseu otherwise th~n by way of lea~ I rcotuncrn!IO 1 r br'~ If this ~" 1~0 to provo th~t the amount was p3id and ao:ePted by woy ~ 111 1\cn' ot >II Oted belru~ DDture Of the burden restlna on the ~ros<eultOO, 0•0 p~~·;o~d ha,·c to Pro•e tlu~0~\cd, bc~usenport from the presuu1pt1<'D t_~e 1p~s~~!~ acctpud as a bribe It t c money was accepted by the a~.J anu t ta 'r a.r.ount by the ~d Is plain that irttteprosecution provcstheacceptance o the n form or &111 kio~ndb the amount docs not represent legal remuneration !n a P~<d by him ••lllotive • t • accused must establish that the amount ;:s not . 8 .J'\.~D establish lti.~sc by or rewurdsuch as is mentioned ins. 161 t.P.C. he ~~~~cd nut prove his c:a,. beyonS'cponucrance of pro babilities. thai ls to saY, t at c a reasonable d oubt. [581 cj · ~ D lhu s c 176~ rcrcrred to. • 11°11 v. The StttU of Utrnr l'radulr AJ.R. 1966 · • -· lolhepr h d ~ nceoftheappdWttwas r.,..lllt1••·C'ieJltcase hoththecourtsluweheldth311 e er\ . wthattheamount ~ .. P<cponu~runce ofprobabllit!es ..-3s ;n favouro t e•·•e 580 SUPP.BMB COURT REPORTS [1974] 2 s.c.R. was acc~pted by the app:llant by way of bribe. Further, there was no particular intimlcy b3tween the appellant and the complainant and it was not likely that the appellant would give a loan to complainant without a receipt and without interest. Further, the complainant bore no enmity with the appellant and there is no evidence to hold that the complainant was inftucnced by anybody into lodging a false case against the appellant. As the appellant had failed to discharge his burden, the order of conviction
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.