STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus RASHID BABUBHAI MULANI

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 189 · Decided: 04-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
A 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
V. 
RASHID BABUBHAI MULANI 
JANUARY 4, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND R.Y. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Conslilulion of India, 1950: 
Article 136-Acquillal by High Court-Interference with-If two views C 
are possible and the view of High Court in acquilling the accused cannot be 
said to be wholly improbable, Supreme Court will no/ interfere, but where 
material on record leads lo only conclusion of guilt of accused, judgment of 
High Court will no/ be sustained-On facts, High Court was no/ justified in 
accepting explanation of the accused and giving him benefit of doubt. 
D 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947/Penal Code, 1860: 
ss. 4,5(2) read with s.5(/)(d)/s. I 6/-Presumption that gratification 
accepted as motive or reward-Rebultal of-Accused in his stalemenl uls 313 
Cr.P.C. explaining that the money was received towards a government loan-
Held, the statutory presumption will no/ stand rebutled merely by offering an E 
explanation uls 313-Contrary position should be established by the accused 
either.from inferences legally drawn from the evidence on record lei in by 
1 
prosecution or by felling in direct evidence in regard lo the explanation-On 
facts, the evidence relating lo demand, payment and acceptance of illegal 
gratification is clear-There is nothing on record lo support the explanation 
of the accused. 
F 
Service of communication-Certificate of posting-Held, is not 
comparable lo a recei.pt for sending a communication by registered post-
Department of Posis may have lo evolve some procedure whereby a record in 
regard lo issuance of certificates of posting is regularly maintained. 
Respondent, while working as Talathi of the village of the 
complainant, demanded a certain amount as bribe from the complainant 
to delete the name of the mortgagee from the revenue records over his 
land. The complainant made the part payment and as regards demand 
189 
G 
H 
190 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006 J I S.C.R. 
A for balance of Rs. 300/-, lodged a report with the Anti-Corruption Bureau. 
A trap was laid; the accused was said to have made again a demand for 
balance amount of Rs.300/-; the complainant paid the marked currency 
notes to the accused and gave a signal to the raiding party, which 
apprehended the accused and recovered the marked currency notes from 
B his pocket. During the trial, the accused gave an explanation in his 
statement u/s 313 Cr.PC that he accepted Rs.300/- from the complainant 
as repayment of interest on loan taken by his brother from the 
Government in respect of which he had sent a notice dated 6.9. 1986 to 
the complainant. The trial court convicted the accused of offences 
punishable under s.161 IPC ands. 5(2) read with s.5(1)(d) of the 
C Prevention of Corruption Act, I 947. However, the High Court held that 
the explanation offered by the accused was reasonable and probable; and 
acquitted him of the charge giving him benefit of doubt. Aggrieved, the 
State filed the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: I. I. Though, it is well-settled that the accused is not required 
to establish his explanation by the strict standard of 'proof beyond 
reasonable doubt', and the presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention 
of Corruption Act , I 947 would stand rebutted if the explanation or 
defence offered and proved by the accused is reasonable and probable, 
E yet the burden on the accused is to be discharged by bringing on record 
evidence, circumstantial or direct, which establishes with reasonable 
probability, that the money was accepted by the accused, other than as a 
T 
motive or reward such as is referred to in Sec. 161. 1197-C-E-FI 
' 
F 
G 
Chaturdas Bhagwandas Pale/ v. The State of Gujarat, AIR 1976 SC 
I 497 and Dhanvantrai Balvan/rai Desai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1964) 
SC 575, relied on. 1196-Et 
Punjabrao v. State ofAfaharash1ra, [20021 10 SCC 371, distinguished. 
1195-EI 
A. Abdul Kaffar v. S1are of Kera/a, 120041 9 SCC 333 and T Shankar 
Prasad v. S1are uf AP. [20041 3 SCC 753, referred to. 1196-AI 
1.2. The evidence of PW-I (complainant), PW-2 (Panch witness) and 
PW-3 (Police Inspector) clearly proves the ingredients of a valid trap case. 
H The evidence of the complainant shows that there was a demand by the 
} 
"' 
I 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RASHID BABUBHAI MULA NI 
191 
accused, payment of Rs. 300 as illegal gratification by the complainant to A 
the accused and acceptance thereof by the accused. The evidence of PW-
2, who acco

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