LexSTATE OF ASSAM versus KRISHNA RAO
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
!l
c
D
E
F
G
II
STATE OF ASSAM
v.
KRISHNA RAO
(With connected Appeal)
September 15, 1972
[[. D. DU<\ AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.)
239
Preve111io11 of Corruption Act, (2 of 1947)-Section 4 (l)-Pres11111.
ption under-Ingredients 10 be satisfied for draH•ing pres111n{Jtion.
In order to raise the presumption under s.4 (I) of the prevention of
Corruption Act what the prosecution has to prove is that the accused per·
son has received 'gratification other than legal remuneration'. and when
it is shown that he has received a certain sum of money \Vhich \\'as not a
legal remuneration, then, the condition prescribed by the section is satis-
fied and the presumption thereunder must be raised.
To raise the pre-
sumption it is not necessary to show that the receipt of the gratification
was accepted as bribe.
In other words, the faetum of receipt of money
with a conscious mind or guilty conscience is not necessary
in order to
bring the case \.vithin the purview of section 4. The \\'ord 'gratification' in
section 4(1) has to be given its literal dictionary meaning of satisfaction
of apetite or desire; it could not be construed to mean money paid by
way o'f a bribe. The words 'unless the contrary is proved' mean that the
presumption raised by section 4 has to be rebutted by proof and not b)'
explan,tion which may be merely plausible. The required .proof need not
be such as is expected for sustaining a criminal conviction; it need only
establish a high degree of probability. [252G-253C]
Staie of Madras v. Vaidianatha Iyer, [1958] S.C.R. 580; E111de11 v.
The State of U.P., [1960] 2 S.C.R. 692; Dhal'antrai v. State of l>f<1/w.
rashtra, A.LR. 1964 S.C. 575; Jhaagan v. State of U.P., [1966] 3 5.C.R.
736 and S. N. Bose v. Stare of Bihar, referred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 92
& 93 cf 1970.
Appeals by special ieave from the judgment and order dated
April 30, 1969 of the Assam & Nagaland High Court at Gauhati
in Cr. As. Nos. 61 & 62 of 1968.
·
G. L. Sanghi and R. N. Sachthey,' for the appellant (in both
the appeals).
A. S. R. Chari, Shiv Pujan Singh and R. Nagaratnam
for
the respondents. (in both the appeals).
'
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DuA, J. These two appeals by the State of Assam
(Cr!. A.
No. 92 of 1970 State of Assam vs .. Krishna Rao and Crl. A. No.
93 of 1970 State of Assam vs. M. D. Bajid) under Art. 136 of
the Constitution are directed against the common judgment of the
Assam & Nagaland High Court dated April 30, 1969 allowing
two appeals by the two respondents (Cr!. A. 61 of 1968-:M. D.
240
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 2 s.c.R.
Bajid vs. State of Assam and Cr!. A. 62 of 1968 V. Krishna Rao
vs. The State of Assam) against two separate judgments of the
Special-IudJie, Gauhati dated June 12, 1968 in two separate trials.
Though the High Court recorded a common judgment, it dealt
with the two cases separately.
We also propose to dispose of
both the appeals by a common judgment.
The relevant facts giving rise to the two cases, the essential
features of which are largely common, may now be stated. Ac-
cused Krishna Rao was a Garrison Engineer, MES at Jorhat and
M. D. Baj id (appellant in the other case) was tb,e Assistant Garri-
son Engineer under him. During the term of office of these two
officers, it is alleged that Messrs Barakar Engineedng and Foundry
Works, Calcutta were contractors under the MES, Jorhat for sup-
plying fabricated building materials and for raising structures with
that material at the sites selected by the MES. The Chief Engi-
neer, Eastern Command, it is not disputed, is the person who
entered into the contract and after the contract was accepted the
accu;ed Krishna,Rao in the capacity of Garrison Engineer was
in owrall charge of the execution of that contract and M. D. Bajid
wa'; his Assistant.
According to the terms of the contract the
contractor was entitled to receive 75% of the value of the goods
supplied through running account bills.
These payments had to
be vetted in the first instance by Bajid as Assistant Garrison Engi-
n~er. For the goods already supplied two running bills were sub-
mitted and the payments'/ under those bills were made upto May
21, 1964.
According to the prosecution case Krishna Rao ail
the time kept harassing the contractor with the motive of getting
bribe and sometimes he expressed to the contractor's agent his
desire in this respect. Even in regard to Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.