LexN. SUNKANNA versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [201_5] 12 S.C.R. 882 N. SUNKANNA v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No.1355 of 2015) OCTOBER 14, 2015 [M.Y. EQBALAND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- ss. 7, 13(1)(d) rlw c 13(2) and 20-Allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe - Trap arranged- Recovery of tainted notes from the accused - During trial complainant turned hostile- The courts below relying on the Panch Witnesses and drawing presumption ul s. 20 convicted the accused- On appeal, held: There was no 0 evidence to prove that the accused made any demand- Mere recovery of the tainted currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence u/ s. 7 -In absence of proof of demand offence uls.13(1)(d) is also not established- Unless there is proof of demand, proof E of acceptance will not follow - Presumption uls. 20 can be drawn only on proof of acceptance- Therefore, courts below wrongly drew presumption u/s. 20. F Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The complainant himself had disowned his complaint and has turned hostile and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand. The only other material available is the recovery G of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. The possession is also admitted by the accused. It is settled law that mere poss·ession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under H 882 N. SUNKANNA v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 883 Section 7, since demand-of illegal gratification is sine- A qua-non to constitute the said offence. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence u/s. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position 8 as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established. [Para 6] [886.-F-H; 887-A-B] 2. It is only on proof of acceptance of illegal C gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Unless there is proof of demand of illegal gratification, proof of D acceptance will not follow. In the present case, the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption u/s. 20 can be drawn, are wholly absent. The conviction of the appellant u/s. 7 and u/s. 13(1 )(d) r/w. s.13(2) of the Act and the sentences imp· osed are set aside and .he is acquitted of the charges. [Paras 6 and 7] [887 -8-F] B. Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2014 (4) SCR 554: (2014) 13 SCC 55; P Satyanarayna Murthy vs. The District Inspector of Police and another 2015 (9) SCALE 724- referred to. Case Law Reference 2014 (4) ~CR 554 referred to. 2015 (9) SCALE 724 referred to. Para 6 Para 6 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1355 of 2015. E· F G From the Judgment and Order dated 02.07.2010 of the High Court of JudicatureAndhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Crl. H 884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 12 S.C.R. \ Appeal No. 65 of 2006. Guntur Prabhaltar, G. Pramod Kumar, Advs., for the Appellant. A. Venkateswara Rao, D. Mahesh Babu,Advs., for the B Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. Leave granted. r · 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 2.7.2010 passed by the High Court ofAndhra Pradesh affirm- ing the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Spe- cial JudgeforSPE andACB cases, City Civil Court Hyderabad, whereby the appellant-accused has been found guilty of com- D mission of offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Sec- tion·13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The ap- pellant-accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous im- prisonment for one year for each of the offences and also to pay a fine of Rs.1 000/- in default to suffer simple imprison- E ment for three months. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant-ac- cused was, at the relevant point of time working as Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies Mandai Revenue Officer, Kurnool in F the State of Andhra Pradesh. The complainant PW-1 K. Sudhakar Reddy had a Fair Price Shop at Narsimha Reddy Nagar Kurnool. It is alleged by the complainant that the appel- lant-accused used to collect Rs.50/- per month from each fair Ci price shop de
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.