T. SHANKAR PRASAD versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2004] 1 S.C.R. 419 · Decided: 12-01-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' "'\ 
T. SHANKAR PRASAD 
A 
v. 
ST ATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
JANUARY 12, 2004 
[DORAJSWAMY RAJU AND ARJJIT PASA YAT, JJ.] 
B 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 
Section 20-Pres11mption-Na111re of-Held: ls an inference of a certain c 
fact drawn from other proved facts and could be either legal or compulsory-
Unless such presumption is disproved or dispelled or rebutted it could be 
treated as tantamozmting to proof-But presumption rebuttab/e only by proof 
and not by a plausible explanation. 
Section 20(1 )-Presumption-Mode of proof-Held: Direct evidence is D 
one of the modes through which a presumption could be proved-But this is 
~. 
not the only mode. 
Sections 7 and 13(/)(d) rlw S. 13(2)-Bribery-Presumption under-
Applicability of-Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (A-1) demanded bribe E 
from· complainant for issuing wiry bills to him-Complainant agreed but 
reported the matter to Anti corruption Bureau-Trap laid-Complainant on 
direction of A-1 paid the money to his Junior Assistant (A-2)-Money 
subsequently recovered from A-2-Trial court convicted A-1 and A-2-High 
Court affirmed the conviction-Correctness of-Held: Involvement of both the 
acc11sed in a well-planned and cleverly managed device to systematically F 
... :1 
collect money stood sufficiently established-Belated plea that the money was 
received towards advance tax rejected-On the contrary complainant was 
entitled to some refund-Conviction upheld. 
Section 7 Explanation (b) and S. 20-Gratification-Meaning of-Held: 
G 
Different dictionaries gave different meanings to the word "gratification"-
But that meaning which would be more appropriate to the context has to be 
found out-The Oxford dictionary meaning "to give pleasure or satisfaction 
"( 
to" was the most appropriate meaning of the word "gratification ".-Evidence 
Act, 1872. 
H 
419 
420 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004) I S.C.R. 
A 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947: 
B 
Section 4-Presllmption-Faclllal or discretionary-Drawing of-Held: 
Col/rt has absolute discretion to presume the existence of any fact-However, 
SllCh presllmption shollld not be used to draw yet another discretionary 
presumption unless there was a statutory compulsion. 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
Section 1 j4-Witness-Cross-examination of-Prosecution witness 
partially resiled from his earlier statement and did not fi1/ly support the· 
C prosecution version-Sllch witness was later cross-examined and contradicted 
with the leave of court-Creditworthiness of witness-Held: Such evidence 
not to be washed off the record altogether-That part of the testimony of the 
witness which was creditworthy might be accepted and acted upon. 
D 
E 
Penal Code, 1860: 
Section 120-B-Criminal conspiracy-Accused charged with criminal 
conspiracy to commit an offence-Substantive charge in respect of the said 
offence also framed-But conspiracy not established-Effect on substantive 
charge-Held: Accused could be convicted/or the substantive offence although 
acquitted of the charge of conspiracy. 
Criminal Trial: 
Proof-Standard of-Held: Proof of a fact depends upon the degree of 
probability of its having existed-The standard required for reaching that 
F supposition is that of a prudent man acting in any important matter concerning 
him. 
Words and Phrases: 
"Gratification "-Meaning of in the context of Section 20 of the 
G Prevention of Corrup!ion Act, 1988. 
"Proo_f'-Meaning of in the context of Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 
1872. 
"Shall be presumed", "may presume" and "shall presume "-Meaning 
H of in the context of Section 4 of the Evidence Act, 1872. 
·+ 
j 
T. SHANKAR PRASAD v.STATE 
421 
, -'( 
"Presumption "-Meaning of in the context of Section 114 of the Evidence A 
Act, 1872. 
The appellants-accused were working as Assistant Commercial Tax 
Officer (A-1) and Junior Assistant (A-2) respectively in the Commercial 
Tax Department. The appellants demanded a certain amount as bribe from 
the complainant (PW-1) for issuing waybills to him. PW-1 agreed to pay B 
the amount but reported the matter to the Anti-Corruption Bureau. A trap 
was laid and PW-1, on the direction of A-1, paid the amount to A-2. The 
said amount was recovered from the possession of A-2. 
During the trial A-2 pleaded that he had accepted the amount as 
advance tax although he made no such statement during the investigation. C 
PW-1 had partially resiled from his earlier statement made before the 
investigating officer and did not fully support the prosecution case. PW-
1 was,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.