STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus C. UMA MAHESWARA RAO AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 665 · Decided: 31-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
' --+-
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
A 
v. 
C. UMA MAHESWARA RAO AND ANR, 
MARCH 31, 2004 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ,] 
B 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Sections 7, 13 & 20(/)/ Evidence 
Act, 1872-Sections 4 and 114-Public Servants convicted for taking 
gratification from complainant for clearance of tender file-High Court C 
acquitting them on ground of non-availability of cogent evidence about demand 
a11d acceptance of gratification-Correctness of-Held, Courts can presume 
tl1e acceptance of gratification jiwn the facts produced unless proved otherwise 
by accused-On facts and evidence, accused are guilty of accepting 
gratification-Hence, conviction upheld. 
Respondent-public servants were members of a Tender Opening 
Committee and were associated with the processing of tender files. 
Respondents demanded money as gratification from complainant for clearing 
D 
his tender file. The complainant lodged a complaint with police about the 
demand of the gratification by the respondents. The police laid a trap and E 
caught the respondents red handed while accepting the tainted money from 
the complainant. Trial Court found the respondents guilty for offences under 
Section 1208 IPC and under Sections 7 and l3(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) 
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, (qgg and sentenced them to undergo 
two years rigorous imprisonment with fine. The High Court allowed the 
appeal of the respondents and acquitted them. 
F 
In appeal to the Court, the appellant-State contended that the High 
Court made out a new case about the discrepancy of the date of complaint 
which was not taken as a plea by the respondents in their appeal; and that 
the evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 5 were cogent and credible to show that the 
respondents demanded and accepted money which were subsequently 
recovered from them. 
The respondents contended that the complainant had close proximity 
with CBI officials and used it as a tactic to get his work done under the threat 
G 
of complaint before; that the complainant foisted a false case implicating them; H 
665 
666 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 3 S.C.R. 
A and that the question of taking gratification from the complainant does not 
arise since the tender file of the complainant had already been cleared which 
is known to the complainant. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. When Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 
1988 deals with legal presumption, it is to be understood as in terrorem i.e. 
in tone of a command that it has to be presumed that the accused accepted 
the gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any 
official act etc., if the condition envisaged in the former part of the Section is 
C satisfied. The only condition for drawing such a legal presumption under 
Section 20 of the Act is that during trial it should be proved that the accused 
has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. The Section does not say 
that the said condition should be satisfied through direct evidence. Its only 
requirement is that it must be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed 
to accept gratification. Direct evidence is one of the modes through which a 
D fa'.'.t can be proved. But that is not the only mode envisaged in the Evidence 
Act. (672-H; 673-A-B( 
M Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., (2001 ( 1 SCC 691, referred to. 
1.2. Proof of the fact depends upon the degree of probability of its having 
E existed. The standard required for reaching the supposition is that of 11 prudent 
man acting in any important matter concerning him. In reaching a conclusion, 
the Court can use the process of inferences to be drawn from facts produced 
or proved. Such inferences are akin to presumptions in law. Law gives absolute 
discretion to the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks 
p 
likely to have happened. Presumption is an inference of a certain fact drawn 
from other proved facts. While infering the existence of a fact from another, 
the Court is only applying a process of intelligent reasoning which the mind 
of a prudent man would do under similar circumstances. Presumption is not 
the final conclusion to be drawn from other facts. But it could as well be final 
if it remains undisturbed later. Presumption in law of evidence is a rule 
G indicating the stage of shifting the burden of proof. From a certain fact or 
facts, the Court can draw an inference and that would remain until such 
inference is either

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