Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2009 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (2) TMI 888 - SUPREME COURTDemanding and accepting gratification by Inspector of Central Excise - convicted the appellant u/s 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act - Test of preponderance of probability - Whether the recovery of the tainted money itself is sufficient to convict the appellant u/s 7? - Accused No. 1 and appellant both was working as Inspector of Central Excise - HELD THAT:- The appellant at the earliest point of time explained that it was not the bribe amount received by him but the same was given to him by PW-10, saying that it was towards repayment of loan taken by his Manager-PW2 from the Accused No. 1. This is evident from the suggestion put to PW-2 even before PW-10 was examined. Similar suggestion was put to the investigating officer that he had not recorded the version given by the appellant correctly in the post trap mahazar-Exhibit-P9 and no proper opportunity was given to explain the sequence of events. A three-Judge Bench in M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P.[2000 (12) TMI 892 - SUPREME COURT] while dealing with the contention that it is not enough that some currency notes were handed over to the public servant to make it acceptance of gratification and prosecution has a further duty to prove that what was paid amounted to gratification It is well settled that the presumption to be drawn u/s 20 is not an inviolable one. The accused charged with the offence could rebut it either through the cross-examination of the witnesses cited against him or by adducing reliable evidence. If the accused fails to disprove the presumption the same would stick and then it can be held by the Court that the prosecution has proved that the accused received the amount towards gratification. It is against this background of principles we have examined the contention of the appellant that the charges u/s 7 have not been proved against him. It was argued by Shri U.U. Lalit, Senior counsel, that the circumstances found by the HC in their totality do not establish that the appellant accepted the amount of ₹ 1500/- as gratification. Having examined the findings of both the Courts, we are satisfied that the appellant has proved his case by the test of preponderance of probability and we accordingly reach the conclusion that the amount was not taken by the appellant as gratification. He was made to believe that amount paid to him was towards the repayment of loan taken by PW2 from Accused No. 1. The prosecution failed in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant received any gratification. Therefore, conviction of the appellant and the sentence imposed upon him is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
|