P. SARANGAPANI (DEAD) THR. LR PAKA SAROJA versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2023] 12 S.C.R. 433 · Decided: 21-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BELA M. TRIVEDI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 12 S.C.R. 433 : 2023 INSC 844
433
CASE DETAILS
P. SARANGAPANI (DEAD) THR. LR PAKA SAROJA
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 2173 of 2011)
SEPTEMBER 21, 2023
[BELA M. TRIVEDI AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in 
confi rming the conviction of appellant-accused no.1 u/s. 7 and s.13(1)(d)
r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Allegation that appellant-
accused no.1 had demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.1500/- as 
gratification other then legal remuneration from the defacto-
complainant – Trial Court convicted the appellant-accused no.1 for 
the off ences u/s. 7 and s.13(1)(d)r/w 13(2) of the 1988 Act – High Court 
confi rmed the conviction – Propriety:
Held: In the instant case the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings were 
duly proved by the prosecution by examining the concerned witnesses, who 
had duly supported the case of prosecution – Both the courts below have 
recorded the fi ndings that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable 
doubt the conscious acceptance of the tainted currency by the accused and 
also the recovery of tainted currency from the appellant – Therefore, the 
burden had shifted on the appellant to dispel the statutory presumption u/s. 20 
of the said Act, and prove that it was not accepted as a motive or reward for 
the performance of his public duty, which the appellant had failed to dispel 
– The explanation off ered by the appellant did not tally with the statement 
of the complainant recorded u/s. 164 of Cr.PC. – The High Court had also 
recorded that the defence taken by the appellant that the acceptance of tainted 
currency by him was towards the Audit fees of the Society was not proved 
by him in as much as there was nothing on record to show that the amount 
434
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
paid by the complainant to the appellant was out of the funds of the Society 
– Both the courts have appreciated the evidence on record threadbare in the 
right perspective and have found the appellant guilty for the off ence u/s. 7 
and s.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act – No need to interfere with the well 
considered fi ndings recorded by both the courts below. [Paras 12 and 13]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Death of the complainant or 
non-availability of the complainant at the time of trial – Consequences:
Held: It is well settled proposition of law that the death of the 
complainant or non-availability of the complainant at the time of trial could 
not be said to be fatal to the case of prosecution, nor could it be said to be 
a ground to acquit the accused – It is always open for the prosecution to 
prove the contents of the complaint and other facts in issue by leading other 
oral or documentary evidence, in case of death of or non-availability of the 
complainant. [Para 9]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Raising of presumption u/s. 
20:
Held: Once the undue advantage i.e., any gratifi cation whatever, other 
than the legal remuneration is proved to have been accepted by the accused, 
the Court is entitled to raise the presumption u/s. 20 that he accepted the 
undue advantage as a motive or reward u/s. 7 for performing or to cause 
performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly – No doubt, such 
presumption is rebuttable. [Para 11]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 
731 – followed.
B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55: [2014] 4 
SCR 554 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No.2173 of 2011.
435
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.03.2011 of the High Court of 
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in CRLA No.54 of 2005.
Appearances:
D. Ramakrishna Reddy, Hrithik Manchanda, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, 
Advs. for the Appellant.
Sriharsha Peechara, Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, Duvvuri Subrahmanya 
Bhanu, Ms. Pallavi, Ms. Kriti Sinha, Advs. for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. The original appellant P. Sarangapani son of Laxmaiah (accused 
no.1) having expired pending the present Appeal, his wife Paka Saroja was 
permitted to proceed further with the Appeal as per the order passed by the 
court on 31st August, 2023.
2. The instant Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 
21st March, 2011 passed by the High Court of Andh

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