LexMOHMOODKHAN MAHBOOBKHAN PATHAN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MOHMOODKHAN MAHBOOBKHAN PATHAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA FEBRUARY 3, 1997 B [M.M. PUNCHHI AND KT. THOMAS, JJ.] Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947: Section 4( I). Presumption-Arising of-Gratification-Held: It arose only when C prosecution proved that what was received· was "gratification ''-Word "gratification" denoted acceptance of something to the pleasure or satisfaction of the recipient-If there was reasonable doubt that what was received by the accused was towards lawful charges he was entitled to benefit of doubt- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S.20-Evidence Act, 1872, S.114--Penal D Code, 1860, S.161. E Words and Phrases: "Gratification''-Meaning of-Jn the context of S.4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The appellant-accused was convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5(2) read with Section S(l)(d) of the Preven- tion of Corruption Act, 1947 for receiving a sum of R~. 60 as illegal gratification. The appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 on each count. The High Court F confinned the conviction and sentence. Hence this appeal. According to the prosecution, the appellant was a Sub-Registrar. The appellant's official duties included, among other things, receiving appHca- tions for certified copies of registered documents and issuance of such G copies. The complainant was in need of certified copies of three sale deeds. When he approached the appellant he was told to submit necessary ap- plications on stamp paper and to pay an amount of Rs. 20 for each certified copy. The complainant reported the matter to the Anti Corruption Bureau. A trap was arranged to catch the appellant red-handed. The complainant went to the office of the appel\ant and presented the applications for copies H of the saie deeds, which he required and then he paid Rs. 60 to the 830 - .... - - M.M. PATHANv. STATE 831 appellant. As soon as the appellant put the amount in his shirt pocket, the A complainant transmitted a signal to the waiting anti corruption squad and they rushed to th_e office and caught him red-handed. The appellant contended tJiat he received the amount as advance money, which he was required to collect as per the Rules in force. The appellant's further case was that before he could make any entry in the B books he was caught by the anti corruption officials on the premise that he received illegal gratification from the complainant. The appellant's contention was rejected by the trial court as well as by the High Court. Hence this appeal. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1.1. The primary condition for acting on the legal presump· tion under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is that c the prosecution should have proved that what the accused received was gratification. The word "gratification" is not defined in the Act. The word D "gratification" is used in Section 4(1) to denote acceptance of something to the pleasure or satisfaction of the recipient. If the money paid is not for personal satisfaction 'or. pleasure of the recipient it is not gratification in the sense it is used in the Section. Unless the prosecution proves that the money paid was not towards any lawful collection or legal remuneration E the court cannot take recourse to the presumption of Jaw contemplated in Section 4(1) of the Act, though the Court is not precluded from drawing appropriate presumption of fact as envisaged in Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 at any stage. [834-D-FJ Oxford Advanced Learner's _Dictionary of Cwrent English, referred to. F -1.2. In the instant case, when the appellant told the complainant that he had to bear Rs. 20/- per copy, the mere fact that he did not use the word "advance" is hardly sufficient to conclude that what he required was not the advance amount which he was legally obliged to collect from the complainant. Similarly the act bf keeping the amount in his pocket is not G decisive to conclude that it was intended for him. Perhaps that could have been the mode of his keeping the money safe till that day's amount was closed. Moreover, as soon as the appellant collected the amount the signal was transmitted by the complainant, which was immediately followed up as members of the anti corruption squad rounded him up. Hence there H 832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 1 S.C.R. A would not have been sufficient interval for the app
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.