STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus R. JEEVARATNAM

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 232 · Decided: 30-07-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
ST A TE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
V. 
R. JEEV ARA TNAM 
JULY 30, 2004 
[S.N. VARIAVA AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.) 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 
S. 7, s. l 3(J}(d) r/w. s.13(2)--Pub/ic servant demanding and accepting 
illegal gratification-Accused, Secretary of a Port Trust demanding bribe 
C to clear tender of a company-Trap laid by CBI and accused caught with 
marked currency-Trial court convicting the accused-Acquittal by High 
Court holding that there was no proof of demand-Held, the evidence of 
complainant and another independent witness clearly established demand 
and acceptance of money-Accused convicted of the offences charged. 
D 
S.20(1)--Presumption--Applicability of 
Respondent, at the relevant time, was Secretary of a Port Trust 
and a member of its Tender Committee. The said Port Trust floated 
a tender in response to which the Company, whereof the complainant 
was the Manager, submitted its quotation which was the lowest. The 
E prosecution case was that the respondent demanded money from the 
complainant as bribe to clear his company's file and asked him to pay 
Rs. 10,000 in advance in a particular hotel on a given date; that the 
complainant reported the matter to the Central Bureau oflnvestigation 
which laid a trap and ca_ught the respondent in the said hotel with 
F 
marked currency of Rs. 10,000 in his brief case. The trial court 
convicted the resv,md_ent and sentenced him to R.I. for two years on 
each count and t~. pay. a fine of Rs. 3000 on each count. The appeal 
filed by the respondent was allowed by the High Court holding that 
before the respondent-accused was stated to have .demanded the 
money, the file of the company had already been cleared to the 
G knowledge of the complainant and, therefore, the question of doing or 
not doing favour did not arise and that the evidence did not establish 
that any demand was raised. Aggrieved, the State filed the present 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal and convicting the respondent of the offences 
H charged, the Court 
232 
STATE OF A.P. v. R. JEEV ARA TNAM 
233 
HELD : 1. The High Court was entirely wrong in coming to the A 
conclusion that there was no proof of demand. The evidence of P.W. 1, 
i.e., the complainant, and P.W.2, an independent witness and who had 
acted as a Panch witness, clearly established demand and acceptance of 
money. P.W.1. has deposed about the demand made on 23rd December, 
1991 and it being repeated on 30th Decem her, 1991 when the respondent B 
asked him to pay at least Rs. 10,000 on 31st December, 1991 in the 
named hotel. The evidence of P.Ws. 1and2, to the effect, that when the 
respondent came into the hotel room and asked P.W.l whether he had 
brought the money demanded as bribe, P.W.1 introduced P.W. 2 as the 
Group Finance Manager, who had come from Bombay and had brought C 
Rs. 10,000 as demanded, and the further evidence that the respondent 
assured that the file would be cleared, clearly establish that there was 
a demand and receipt of the money was as a bribe. On this evidence 
which has not been shaken in cross-examination, besides the offence 
under s.7, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of 
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 had also been made out. The D 
High Court erred in acquitting the respondent merely on the basis of 
conjectures and surmises. [236-F-H; 237-C-F; 238-D-E) 
2. The Respondent was caught red-handed with the marked money 
in a briefcase carried by him. The presumption under Section 20(1) of E 
the Act thus arose. The High Court unfortunately overlooked this aspect. 
The submission made on behalfofthe respondent, that the presumption 
under Section 20 does not arise in a case under Section 13(l)(d) of the 
Act and that for an offence under Section 13(l)(d) the demand had also 
to be proved, overlooks the fact that the respondent had been accused 
of an offence under Section 7 also which offence was proved to have F 
been committed. The only condition for drawing the presumption is 
that during trial it should be proved that the accused had accepted or 
agreed. to accept any gratification. [237-G; 238-B; 236-CJ 
State of Andhra Pradesh v. C. Uma Maheswara Rao, [2004) 4 sec G 
399 and Raghubir Singh v. State of Punjab, [1974] 4 SCC 560, relied on. 
Subhash Parbat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat, [2002) 5 SCC 86, cited. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
1os1 of 1998. 
H 
234 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment an

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