V. D. JHANGAN versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 736 · Decided: 03-03-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO, V. RAMASWAMI, J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

V. D. JHANGAN 
v. 
STATE OF UITAR PRADESH 
March 3, 1966 
A 
(K. SUBBA RAO, V. RAMASWAMI AND J. M. SllELAT, JJ.j 
B 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (2 o/ 1947), 1. 4(1)-PrUllmprion 
under section, when arises-Receipt of money or valuable thin1 hy 
accused whether sufTu:ient-Nature of burden of proof on ar:custd for 
r1butt/na such presumption. 
The appellant, an employee of the Ministry of Commerce was tried 
for o1Iellee6 1111der s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and a. 5(2) read with 
t. 5(l)(d) of tho Prevention of Comiption Act on the allegation that he 
received a sum of money and aome cloth from a trader. He wu con-
victed and bis appeal before the High Court failed. 
In appeal before thia 
Coun the questions that fell for determination 
related 
to : 
(i) 
the 
circu=tances in which a pr~umption under 8\lb.6. ( 1) of s. 4 of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act could arise, and (ii) the nature of the 
burden of proof that lay on an accused person to rebut such a p~umpllon 
when it arises. 
HELD: (i) For a presumption to be raised under s. 4(1) it ii not 
necessary for the prosecution to prove anything more than that money or 
other valuable thing was received by the accusedi it is not nece918ry toe 
tho prosecution, for the above purpose, to prove the incriminating charac-
ter of the said paym""t. (739 E, Fl 
Dhanvantral BalwanrraJ Desai v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 19&4 
S.C. 515 and C. I. Emden v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.l.R. 1960 S.C. 548, 
followed. 
(ii) The burden of proof lying upon tho accused under s. 4(1) will 
be satisfied if the accused penon establishes his case by a preponderance 
of probability and it is not necessary that he should establish his case by 
tho test of proof beyond a reason.able doubt. 
The onus on an accused 
~ 
may well be compared to the onus on a party in civil proceed-
mgs. (741 BJ 
Woolmlngton v. Director of PubUc Prosecutions, [1935] A.C. 462, 
Rex ,., Carr-Briant, [1943] 1 K.B. 607 and Harbhajan Singh v. State of 
Punjab. [1965] 3 S.C.R. 235, referred to. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
In the pre<ent case the appellant had not proved his case even by 
the test of preponderance of probability. 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
157 of 1964. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
March 20, 1964 of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) 
at Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 20of1962. 
H 
Jai Gopal Sethi, C. L. Sareen and R. L. Kohli, for the appe-
llaut. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
JHANGAN v. STATE (Ramaswami, J.) 
737. 
S. T. Desai, R. L. Mehta and 0. P. Rana, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ramaswami, J. The appellant was tried for offences under 
s. 161, Indian Penal Code and s. 5(2) read with s. 5(1)(d) of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act by special Judge, Anti-Corruption, 
Lucknow who by his judgment dated January 8, 1962 convicted . 
the appellant and sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprison-
ment and a fine of Rs. 2,000. In default for payment of fine the 
appellant was further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment 
for one year. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Allahabad 
High Court, Lucknow Bench, which dismissed the appeal by its 
judgment dated March 20, 1964 and affirmed the conviction and 
sentence imposed by the Special Judge upon the appellant. This 
appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the Allaha-
bad High Court, Lucknow Bench. 
The appellant was employed as Assistant Director Enforce-
ment, Government of India, Ministry of Commerce at Kanpur and 
used to deal with matters regarding the cancellation of licences of 
cloth dealers at Kanpur. On or about September 5, 1951 the 
appellant received a confidential letter dated August 30, 1951 from 
the District Magistrate, Kanpur. On the same date the appellant 
called one Ram Lal Kapoor who was the legal adviser of New 
Victoria Mills Ltd. at his house. The appellant showed him the 
letter of the District Magistrate and on the strength of that letter he 
demanded through Ram Lal Kapoor a bribe of Rs. 30,000 from 
Sidh Gopal for saving his licence from being cancelled. It appears 
that Sidh Gopal was a partner of various firms dealing in cloth and 
it was suspected that these firms were indulging in black-marketing 
in cloth. Sidh Gopal came to the appellant on September 9, 1951 
to· talk over the matter and the appellant made the same demand · 
of bribe from him. On September 11, 1951, the appellant is alleged 
to have a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.