2000 (11) TMI 1250 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Presumption of gratification u/s 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. Conviction and sentencing of the public servant.
3. Authority of the High Court to reduce the sentence below the statutory minimum.

Summary of Judgment:

1. Presumption of Gratification u/s 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947:
The court emphasized that once the prosecution establishes that gratification in any form has been paid or accepted by a public servant, the court is legally compelled to presume that the said gratification was paid or accepted as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing from doing any official act. This presumption, introduced through an amendment in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and carried forward into the 1998 enactment, stands unless the gratification is so trivial that no inference of corruption could be fairly drawn.

2. Conviction and Sentencing of the Public Servant:
The public servant admitted to receiving a certain amount from a private party but claimed it was legally due to him. Both the trial court and the High Court found that he failed to prove this claim. Consequently, he was convicted u/s 5(2) of the Act of 1947 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 5000/-. The High Court, while confirming the conviction, reduced the imprisonment to one day and increased the fine to Rs. 3000/-. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant pursued the special leave petition despite the risk of losing the benefit secured from the High Court.

3. Authority of the High Court to Reduce the Sentence Below the Statutory Minimum:
The Supreme Court scrutinized the High Court's authority to reduce the sentence below the statutory minimum. The court highlighted that the proviso to Section 5(2) of the Act of 1947 allows for a sentence less than one year only for "special reasons" recorded in writing. The court found no special reasons in this case to justify the reduction of the sentence. The Supreme Court restored the sentence passed by the trial court, emphasizing that the longevity of the case cannot be considered a special reason for reducing the minimum sentence mandated by Parliament. The court underscored the legislative intent to impose stringent measures to deter corruption among public servants.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court restored the trial court's sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, rejecting the High Court's reduction of the imprisonment term to one day.