LexSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus V. VASUDEVA RAO
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. V. VASUDEVA RAO NOVEMBER 13, 2003 [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARJJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860/Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-Section 1611 Sections 4(1) and 5(2) rlw Section 5(1}(d)-1//egal gratification- C Complaint-Trap arranged-Accused caught with tainted amount- Prosecution-Acceptance of money admitted, but the same pleaded to be return of hand-loan-Non-examination of complainant as witness due to his death-Conviction by trial Court-Acquittal by High Court on the ground that in absence of evidence to prove acceptance of money, presumption not available-On appeal, held: Accused liable to be convicted as receipt and D recovery of tainted money is accepted-Presumption u/s 4 being legal presumption, is compulsory presumption-For drawing such presumption the only condition is that it should be proved that accused had accepted or agreed to accept any gratification-Such condition need not be proved through direct evidence-Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 4 and 114. E Sentencing Case of acceptance of illegal gratification-sentence-Criteria for- Plea for lesser sentence in view of long pendency of case and advance age of accused-Held: Jn such cases there is no scope for any leniency-Long F pendency cannot be considered a special reason-In view of age of accused sentence reduced to minimum. Words and Phrases: 'Presumption '-Meaning of in the context of Section 4(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Respondent-accused was prosecuted for offences punishable u/s 61 IPC G and Section 5(2) r/w Section S(l)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. It was alleged that the respondent had demanded a bribe from complainant-his subordinate staff. On complaint, a trap was arranged and the accused was caught with the tainted amount. Accused pleaded innocence and took the plea that the said amount was by way of return of hand-loan to the complainant. H 500 • STATEOFA.P.v. V.V.RAO 501 Due to death of the complainant, he could not be examined as a witness during A trial. Trial court convicted the accused holding that though complainant could not be eumined there was sufficient evidence that the accused demanded bribe and he received the tainted amount on the date of trap from the Complainant; and that the plea of hand-loan was not established. On appeal, High Court acquitted the accused holding that the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. did not relieve the prosecution of its duty to prove acceptance of money; that B since there was no evidence to prove acceptance of money, the presumption available u/s 4 of the Act was not applicable; that statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. does not become evidence. In appeal to this Court, appellant-State contended that presumption u/s C 4 of the Act was available particularly when there was no denial about recovery of the money; and that even if presumption was not available, the Court could presume that in ordinary course most probable inference was supportable by the evidence on record. Respondent-accused contended that when the evidence on record does D not establish any demand, mere recovery would not suffice; that for the presumption u/s 4 of the Act, the amount must have been received as gratification, and since there was no evidence in that regard, presumption u/s 4 was not applicable; and that in view of the fact that the case was pending since long and the accused was of old age, the sentence should be reduced. Allowing the appeal, the Court E HELD: 1.1 Accused was rightly convicted under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(l)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 by the trial Court. Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 can be used in the present context as well, when prosecution brought reliable F materials that there was recovery of money from the accused. In fact the receipt and recovery is accepted. The other factor is the acceptability of the plea of loan, which the High Court itself has not held cogent or credible. (509-F-G; 513-FJ G Raghubir Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974) 4 SCC 560; C.I. Emden v. State ofUttar Pradesh, AIR (1960) SC 548 and V.D. Jhagan v. State ofUttar Pradesh, ( 1966) 3 SCR 736, relied on. Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1980) 2 SCC 390; Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra (2000] 8 SCC 571; Mohmoodkhan H 502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A Mahboobkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, (1997( IO SC
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.