SRI C. I. EMDEN versus THE STATE OF U. P.

Citation: [1960] 2 S.C.R. 592 · Decided: 15-12-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

I959 
Decembef' IS 
592 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(2)] 
SRI C. I. EMDEN 
v. 
THE STATE OF U. P. 
(B. P. SINHA, C.J., P. B. G.AJENDR.AG.ADK.AR, 
K. SuBB.A R.Ao, K. C. D.As GueT.A and J.C. SH.AH, JJ.) 
Prevention of Corruption-Trial on a charge of bribery-
Receipt of gratification other than legal remuneration, meaning of-
Statutory presumption-Whether offends guarantee of equal protec-
tion of laws-Rebuttal of presumption-Constitution of India, 
Art. I4-Prevention of Cormption Act, I947 (II of r947), s. 4· 
The appellant, who was working as a Loco Foreman, was 
found to have accepted a sum of Rs. 375 from a Railway Con-
tractor. The appellant's explanation was that he had borrowed 
the amount as he was in need of money for meeting the expenses 
of the clothing of his children who were studying in school. The 
Special Judge accepted the evidence of the contractor and held 
that the money had been taken as a bribe, that the defence story 
was improbable and untrue, that the presumption under s. 4 of 
the Prevention of Corruption Act had to be raised and that the 
presumption had not been rebutted by the appellant and accord-
ingly convicted him under s. 161 Indian Penal Code and s. 5 of 
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947· On appeal the High 
Court held that on the facts of the case the statutory presump-
tion under s. 4 had to be raised, that the explanation offered by 
the appellant was improbable and palpably unreasonable and 
that the presumption had not been rebµtted, and upheld the 
conviction. The appellant contended (i) ·thats. 4 was ultra vires 
as it contravened Art. 14 of the Constitution, (ii) that the 
presumption under s. 4 could not be raised merely on proof of 
acceptance of money but it had further to be proved that the 
money was accepted as a bribe, (iii) and that even if the presump-
tion arose it was rebutted when the appellant offered a reasonably 
probable explanation. 
Held, that s. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act did not 
violate Art. 14 of the Constitution. The classification of public 
servants who were brought within the mischief of s. 4 was based 
on intelligible differentia which had a rational relation to the 
object of the Act, viz., eradicating bribery and corruption amongst 
public servants. 
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar, [1959] 
S.C.R. 279, followed. 
A. S. Krishna v. The State of Madras, [1957] S.C.R. 399, 
referred to. 
The presumption under s. 4 arose when it was shown that 
• 
• 
-
the accused had received the stated amount and that the said 
• 
amount was not legal remuneration. The word "gratification 
• 
-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
593 
in s. 4(1) was to be given its literal dictionary meaning of satisfac-
• 
I959 
tion of appetite or desire ; it could not be construed to mean 
money paid by way of a bribe. The High Court was justified in Sri C. I. Emden 
raising the presumption against the appellant as it was admitted 
v. 
that he had received the money from the contractor and the 
The State of 
amount received was other than legal remuneration. 
Uttar Pradesh 
State v. Pundlik Bhikaji Ahire, (1959) 6I Born. L.R. 837 and 
Promod Chander Shekhar v. Rex, I.L.R. 1950 All. 382, approved. 
The State v. Abhey Singh, A.LR. 1957 Raj. 138 and State v. 
Pandurang Laxman Parab, (r958) 60 Born. L.R. Su, disapproved. 
Even if it be assumed that the presumption arising under 
s. 4(1) could be rebutted by the accused giving an explanation 
which was a reasonably probable one the High Court was right 
in holding that the explanation given by . the appellant was 
wholJy unsatisfactory and unreasonable. 
_ Otto George Gfeller v. The King, A.LR. 1943 P.C. 2II and 
Rex v. Carr Briant, (1943) I K.B. 607, referred to. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 68 of 1958. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated July 11, 1957, of the Allahabad High 
Court (Lucknow Bench), Lucknow, in Criminal Appeal 
No: 515 of 1955, arising out of the judgment and order 
dated October 31, 1955, of the Special Judge, Anti-
corruption, Lucknow, in Criminal Case No. 2/3/32/45 
of 1953-55. 
' 
Frank Anthony, Udai Pratap Singh and P. 0. 
Agarwala, for the appellant. 
G. O. ~Mathur and 0. P. Lal, for the respondent. 
1959. December 15. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
·· 
GAJENDRAGADKAR J.-This appeal by special leave :Gajendragadkar ]. 
has been filed by C. I. Emden (hereinafter called the 
appellant) who has been convicted under s. 161

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