V. SEJAPPA versus THE STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR LOKAYUKTA, CHITRADURGA

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 525 · Decided: 12-04-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 2 S.C.R. 525 
V. SEJAPPA 
v. 
THE STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR LOKAYUKTA, 
CHITRADURGA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 747 of2008) 
APRIL 12, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.) 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 
ss. 7, I 3(J}(d), 13(2) - Allegation of demand and acceptance 
of illegal gratification of Rs,50001- to do an official act in 
connection with issuance of NOC to the complainant to process his 
pension papers - Acquittal by trial court on the ground that 
prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance and that no 
sanction order for prosecution of appellant was obtained- On States 
appeal, acquittal set aside - Appeal against conviction - Held: 
Sai1ction Order was obtained from PW-8, the Under Secretary to 
Government, PWD - Considering the evidence of PW-8, the High 
Court ivas right iii holding that there was a valid sanction to 
pros~cute the appellant - In the case at hand, all that was established 
by the prosecution was the recovery of money from the appellant 
and mere recovery of money was not enough to draw the presumption 
u/s.20 of the Act - Absence of proof of demand coupled with PW-
2 s evidence that the amount was paid by PW-I to the appelldnt 
towards purchase of diesel raised serious doubts about the amount 
being paid by PW-I as illegal gratification - High Court neither 
considered the defence plea of alibi nor it held that the decision of 
the trial court was erroneous or perverse - Evaluation of evidence 
made by trial court while recording an order of acquittal did not 
,. suffer from any infirmity and the grounds on which the order of 
acquittal was based cannot .be said to be unreasonable - While so, 
High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of acquittal. 
s.20- Presumption under - Held: The initial burden of proving 
that the accused accepted or obtained the amount other than legal 
remuneration is upon the prosecution - It is only when this initial 
burden regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification 
is successfully discharged by the prosecution, then the burden of 
525 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
526 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 2 S.C.R. 
proving the defence shifts upon the accused and a presumption 
would arise uls.20 of the Act. 
Appeal against acquittal: Scope of interference by High Court 
- Held: If the evaluation of the evidence and the findings recorded 
by the trial court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity 
and the grounds on which the trial court has based its conclusion 
are reasonable and plausible, the High Court should not disturb 
the order of acquittal if another view is possible. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Sanction Order was obtained from PW-8, the 
Under Secretary to Government, PWD. As per the evidence of 
PW-8, the file regarding the sanction for prosecuting the appellant 
was submitted to the Secretary, PWD and the same was forwarded 
to PWD Minister and npon being satisfied, PWD Minister granted 
the sanction. After sanction so was granted, PW-8 issued Ex.P31-
Sanction Order and thus PW-8 was only carrying out the decision 
of the Government by issuing Ex.P31. Considering the evidence 
of PW-8, the High Court was right in holding that there was a 
valid sanction to prosecute the appellant. [Paras 8 and 9] [532-E-
F; 533-A-B] 
2. In order to constitute an offence under Section 7 of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 'proof of demand' is a si11e quo 
11011. It is the case of the prosecution that on 09.12.1997, the 
appellant demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification 
from PW-1 to discharge the official act of forwarding PW-1 's 
application for pension and for release of retiral benefits. On the 
contrary, the appellant has taken the plea of alibi. The appellant 
contended that on 09.12.1997, he was actually on official tour in 
Bangalore from 07.12.1997 to 10.12.1997 for attending a seminar 
and that after attending the seminar, on 10.12.1997, he along with 
PW-7 took delivery of a van allotted to Chitradurga PHE, Sub-
Division. PW-4 First Division Assistant, PHE, Chitradurga has 
stated in his cross-examination that as per the contents of 
attendance register (Ex.P16), the column relating to the 
attendance of the appellant was blank from 03.12.1997 to 
11.12.1997. PW-4 had admitted that about one week prior to the 
trap on 17 .12.1997, a new van was allotted to Chitrad urga PHE, 
Sob-Division and that the appellant and PW-7, JE had taken the 
V. SEJAPPA v. THE

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