NARENDRA CHAMPAKLAL TRIVEDI versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2012] 6 S.C.R. 165 · Decided: 29-05-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 6 S.C.R. 165 
NARENDRA CHAMPAKLAL TRIVEDI 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
(Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2012) 
MAY 29, 2012 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s. 7 - Conviction 
under - Recovery of tainted money - Held: Mere recovery of 
A 
B 
the tainted money is not suffiCient to record a convictiQn 
C 
unless there is evidence that bribe had been demanded or 
money was paid voluntarily as a bribe - However, th.ere is a 
statutory presumption u/s. 20 of the Act which can be 
dislodged by the accused by bringing on record some 
evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that money was 
D 
accepted by other than the motive or reward as stipulated u/ 
s. 7 of the Act - - In the case at hand, the money was recovered 
from the pockets of the accused-appellants - A presumption 
u/s.20 of the Act became obligatory- There was no evidence 
on the basis of which it could be said that the presumption 
was rebutted - There was nothing to doubt the presence of 
the shadow witness - All the witnesses supported the case of 
the prosecution - Therefore, the conviction recorded by the 
tn·a1 court which was affirmed by the High Court did not warrant 
any interference. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 142 -
Scope of 
interference with the sentence- Held: The power u!Article 142 
E 
F 
of the Constitution is a constitutional power and hence, not 
restricted by statutory enactments - This power cannot be 
used to supplant the law applicable to the case - This means 
G 
that acting under Article 142, the Supreme Court cannot pass 
an order or grant relief which is totally inconsistent or goes 
against the substantive or statutory enactments pertaining to 
the case - In view of that where the minimum sentence is 
165 
H 
166 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 
A provided, it would not be at all appropriate to exercise 
jurisdiction u/Article 142 of the Constitution of India to reduce 
the sentence on the ground of the so-called mitigating factors 
as that would tantamount to supplanting statutory mandate -
The amount may be small but to curb and repress this kind 
B of proclivity the legislature has prescribed the minimum 
sentence - Corruption at any level does not deserve either 
sympathy or leniency - In fact, reduction of the sentence 
would be adding a premium -
The law does not so 
countenance and, rightly so, because corruption corrodes the 
c spine of a nation and in the ultimate eventuality makes the 
economy sterile - Sentence/Sentencing. 
The allegation against the appellants was that they 
demanded bribe from the complainant for supplying 
copies of survey report. The trial court and High Court 
D held the appellants guilty for committing offence 
punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced them to undergo 
rigorous imprisonment of six months with fine of Rs.5,000/ 
- each and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple 
E imprisonment for a period of one month and further 
convicted them under Section 13(2) of the Act and 
sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a 
period of one year with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in 
default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one 
F month with the stipulation that both the sentences would 
be concurrent. The instant appeals were filed challenging 
the order of the High Court. 
G 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is the settled principle of law that mere 
recovery of the tainted money fs not sufficient to record 
a conviction unless there is evidence that bribe had been 
demanded or money was paid voluntarily as a bribe. In 
the absence of any evidence of demand and acceptance 
H of the amount as illegal gratification, recovery would not 
NARENDRA CHAMPAKLAL TRIVEDI v. STATE OF 
167 
GUJARAT 
alone be a ground to convict the accused. It is also 
A 
settled in law that there is a statutory presumption under 
Section 20 of the Act which can be dislodged by the 
accused by bringing on record some evidence, either 
direct or circumstantial, that money was accepted by 
other than the motive or reward as stipulated under 
B 
Section 7 of the Act. It is obligatory on the part of the 
court to consider the explanation offered by the accused 
under Section 20 of the Act and the consideration of the 
explanation has to be on the anvii of preponderance of 
probability. It is not to be proven beyond all reasonable c 
doubt. It is necessary to state that the prosecution

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