THE STATE OF GUJARAT versus NAVINBHAI CHANDRAKANT JOSHI ETC.

Citation: [2018] 9 S.C.R. 329 · Decided: 17-07-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
329
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
v.
NAVINBHAI CHANDRAKANT JOSHI ETC.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 895-896 of 2018)
JULY 17, 2018
[RANJAN GOGOI AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 –  ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) –
Illegal gratification – On facts, accused no. 1 demanded bribe from
the complainant, trap arranged and tainted currency notes seized
from accused no. 2 – Trial court held that the demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification proved by the prosecution by
evidence of the complainant and prosecution witness as also
presence of anthracene powder with the accused – Conviction of
both the accused u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) and sentenced accordingly –
High Court holding that there was no recovery from accused no. 1,
acquitted the accused – On appeal, held: Since it is established
that accused was possessing the bribe money, it was for them to
explain that how the bribe money has been received by them and if
he failed to offer any satisfactory explanation, it would be presumed
that he has accepted bribe – Accused have not offered any
explanation to rebut the presumption u/s. 20 – Evidence of the
complainant that accused demanded bribe appears to be natural –
When the findings recorded by the trial court is based upon
appreciation of evidence, the High Court was not right in reversing
the judgment of the trial court – Thus, the order passed by the High
Court set aside.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is well-settled that to establish the offence
under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 particularly those relating to the trap cases, the
prosecution has to establish the existence of demand as well as
acceptance by the public servant. [Para 8] [334-B]
1.2 From the evidence of PW-1, demand by accused No.1
and accused No.2 is proved by the prosecution. The same is
corroborated by the test of the ultra violet light showing the
  [2018] 9 S.C.R. 329
  329
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
330
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
presence of anthracene powder on the shirt worn by accused No.2
and the right hand of accused No.1. Evidence of PW-1 is
corroborated by the evidence of PW-3. The trial court recorded
the findings that the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 is consistent and
they are reliable witnesses. Upon appreciation of evidence,
adduced by the prosecution, the trial court convicted accused
Nos. 1 and 2. [Para 9] [335-A-C]
1.3 The High Court acquitted the accused on the ground
that there was no recovery from accused No.1 and that the demand
by the accused persons has not been established by the
prosecution. The High Court took the view that accused No.2
had no idea for what purpose the money was given to accused
No.1 by PW-1 and therefore, it cannot be said that accused No.2
had accepted the bribe amount upon demand to PW-1. The High
Court was not right in brushing aside the evidence of PW-1 who
has clearly stated that accused No.1 demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/
- and the same was settled for Rs.500/- for expediting the matter
for conversion of the plot for non-agricultural purpose. Recovery
of the tainted currency notes from accused No.2 and the presence
of anthracene powder in the right hand of accused No.1 and the
pocket of the shirt of accused No.2 clearly show that they acted
in tandem in the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount.
When the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification has been
proved by the evidence of PWs 1 and 3, the High Court was not
right in holding that the demand and acceptance was not proved.
[Para 10][335-C-F]
1.4 It is settled law that the presumption raised under
Section 20 of the Act is a rebuttable presumption, and that the
burden placed on the appellant for rebutting the presumption is
one of preponderance of probabilities. Since it is established that
the accused was possessing the bribe money, it was for them to
explain that how the bribe money has been received by them and
if he fails to offer any satisfactory explanation, it will be presumed
that he has accepted the bribe. The accused have not offered any
explanation to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the
Act. On the other hand, from the evidence of PW-1 that accused
No.1 demanded the bribe appears to be natural. The application
for approval of revised plan was earlier rejected. When the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
331
complainant and his advocate met TDO and on whose direction
PW-1 has paid the requisite fine amount, the file has to necessarily
move. It was at that point of time accused No.1 demande

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