THE STATE OF KARNATAKA versus CHANDRASHA

Citation: [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1472 · Decided: 26-11-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJIV KHANNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1472 : 2024 INSC 928
The State of Karnataka  
v. 
Chandrasha 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2646 of 2024)
26 November 2024
[Sanjiv Khanna, CJI, Sanjay Kumar  
and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High 
Court setting aside the conviction of the respondent-government 
servant u/ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) of the Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding of illegal gratification and its 
subsequent acceptance. 
Headnotes†
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 
20 – Illegal gratification – Presumption u/s. 20, if attracted – 
Prosecution case of demand and acceptance of bribe amount 
by the respondent-government servant from the complainant 
for encashment of the bill of Surrender leave salary pertaining 
to the complainant and three others of his school and 
recovery of the same from the possession of the respondent – 
Conviction of the respondent u/ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) – 
However, order of acquittal by the High Court – Correctness: 
Held: Prosecution initiated the proceedings against the respondent, 
after obtaining the sanction order from the competent authority – It 
can be safely infered that the respondent had received or accepted 
the currency notes on his own volition and the testimony of the 
prosecution witnesses including the testimony of the investigating 
officer would go to show the demand, acceptance and recovery of 
the bribe amount from the possession of the respondent and the 
prosecution proved the charges framed against the respondent 
beyond reasonable doubt – Said operation was preceded by recording 
of the demand in the tape recorder – In such circumstances, the 
respondent had to rebut the presumption by disproving the case of 
the prosecution either in the cross- examination of the prosecution 
side witnesses or by adducing material evidence that the receipt 
* Author
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
1473
The State of Karnataka v. Chandrasha
of Rs.2,000/- was not a bribe amount, but a legal fee or repayment 
of loan – However, he failed to do so and on the contrary, the 
prosecution proved the case beyond any doubt – Furthermore, first 
two limbs under sub sections (1) and (2) of s.13 make it clear that 
adequacy of consideration is irrelevant to draw the presumption – 
That apart, sub-section (3) only grants a discretion to Court to 
decline from drawing any presumption if the amount is so trivial so 
that such inference of corruption is not fairly possible in the facts of 
the case – Thus, not a rule but an exception available to the Court 
to exercise its discretionary power in the facts and circumstances 
of the case – On facts, no inclination to exercise such discretion – 
Judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court is illegal, erroneous 
and contrary to the materials on record – Recovery of bribe amount 
from the respondent having been proved, explanation offered by 
the respondent in the absence of any concrete material, cannot be 
accepted – ‘Demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of the bribe amount having 
been established beyond doubt, no two views possible, thus the 
approach adopted by the High Court is perverse – Order passed 
by the High Court set aside and that of the trial court restored. 
[Paras 16, 19, 21-25]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.20 – Presumption u/s.20, 
when attracted – Relevance of adequacy of consideration to 
draw the presumption:
Held: Reference to sub section (3) to s. 20 regarding the triviality 
of the gratification, the act sought or performed, and the amount 
demanded cannot be considered in isolation to each other – Value 
of gratification is to be considered in proportion to the act to be 
done or not done, to forbear or to not forebear, favour or disfavour 
sought, so as to be trivial to convince the Court, not to draw any 
presumption of corrupt practice – It is also not necessary that 
only if substantial amount is demanded, the presumption can be 
drawn – Overall circumstances and the evidence will also have to 
be looked into – s.20 would come into operation only when there is 
no nexus between the demand and the action performed or sought 
to be performed – But, when the fact of receipt of payment or an 
agreement to receive the gratification stands proved, there is a 
clear case of nexus or corroboration and the presumption itself is 
irrelevant – s.20 gets attracted when it is proved that the public 
servant has accepted or agreed to accept an

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