STATE OF PUNJAB versus MADAN MOHAN LAL VERMA

Citation: [2013] 7 S.C.R. 1130 · Decided: 12-08-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 7 S.C.R. 1130 
A 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
B 
v. 
MADAN MOHAN LAL VERMA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2052 of 2010) 
AUGUST 12, 2013 
(DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988: 
ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with s.13(2) - Conviction by trial 
C court, set aside by High Court - Held: Demand of illegal 
gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under 
the Act - Meie recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to 
convict the accused, unless there is evidence to prove 
payment of bribe or that the money was taken voluntarily as 
D a bribe - High Court accepted the defence version made u/s 
313Cr.PC that possibility of Phenolphthalein powder 
appearing on the hands of-accused when he shook hands with 
the complainant, cannot be .ruled out -Executive Magistrate, 
who had been associated with the trap party, deposed only 
E about recovery and not about accepting the bribe money -
This statement alone made it evident that the prosecution has 
not disclosed the genesis of the case correctly - There is, 
therefore, no cogent reason to interfere with the conclusion 
reached by High Court - Appeal against acquittal. 
F 
G 
H 
s. 20 - Statutory presumption - Rebuttal of - Discussed. 
EVIDENCE: 
Evidence of complainant in a bribe case - Nature of -
Discussed. 
The respondent was alleged to have demanded 
illegal gratification from the complainant for not to reopen 
his income tax assessment. The complainant approached 
the DSP (Vigilance). A trap was laid. The complainant and 
1130 
STATE OF PUNJAB v. MADAN MOHAN LAL VERMA 1131 
the shadow witness reached the house of the respondent 
A 
with chemically treated currency notes. On receiving the 
signal, the raiding party, which included a DSP and an 
Executive Magistrate, recovered the chemically treated 
currency notes that were kept on a table covered in a 
newspaper. The chemical examination of the 
B 
respondent's hands was positive. The trial court 
convicted the respondent of the charges and awarded 
him sentence of one year each under the two counts. 
However, the High Court set aside the conviction and 
sentence. 
c 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Demand of illegal gratification is sine qua 
non for constituting an offence under the Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988. Mere recovery of tainted money is 0 
not sufficient to convict the accused, unless there is 
evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the 
money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. While invoking 
the provision of statutory presumption u/s 20 of the Act, 
the court is required to consider the explanation offered 
E 
by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of 
preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone 
of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before 
the accused is called upon to explain how the amount in 
question was found in his possession, the foundational 
facts must be established by the prosecution. The · F 
complainant is an interested and partisan witness, 
concerned with the success of the trap, and his evidence 
must be tested in the same way as that of any other 
interested witness. In a proper case, the court may look 
for independent corroboration before convicting the 
G 
accused. [para 7] [1136-D-E, G-H; 1137-A-B] 
Ram Prakash Arora v. The State of Punjab AIR 1973 SC 
498; T. Subramanian v. The State of T.N., 2006 (1) SCR 180 
= AIR 2006 SC 836; State of Kera/a & Anr. v. C.P. Rao 2011 
H 
1132 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 7 S.C.R. 
A (6) SCR 864 = (2011) 6 SCC 450; and Mukut Bihari & Anr. 
v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 11 SCC 642 • referred to. 
1.2 So far as the recovery in the instant case is 
concerned, the High Court accepted the defence version 
made u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and 
B recorded 
the finding 
that the possibility of 
Phenolphthalein powder appearing on the hands of the 
respondent-accused when he shook hands with the 
complainant cannot be ruled out. [para 8-9] [1137 -C, F] 
1.4 The courts below have not taken note of the 
C statement made by PW.2 who is an Executive Magistrate 
and had been associated with the trap party. He must be 
treated to be the most reliable and independent person. 
PW.2 is a witness only of recovery and not of accepting 
the bribe money. This statement alone made it evident 
D that the prosecution has not disclosed the genesis of the 
case correctly. The subsequent cases against the 
accused for having disproportionate assets cannot be 
co-related wit

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