TMI Blog1962 (9) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollect any money for meeting the expenses of repairs to the temple. It is because of these circumstances and because it believed the statement of the complainant that the appellant had asked him for a bribe that the High Court did not accept the appellant's explanation that the money was paid by the complainant to him for being passed on to the temple trustee as true. The High Court disbelieved the evidence of Apte and held the letter to be worthless. In doing so it cannot be said that the High Court' has acted unreasonably. Appeal dismissed. - Criminal Appeal No. 218 of 1960 - - - Dated:- 28-9-1962 - MUDHOLKAR, J.R., IMAM, SYED JAFFER, SUBBARAO, K. AND AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA, JJ. JUDGMENT A.S. R. Chari, M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh, S. C. Aggarwal, L. M. Atmaram Bhukhanwala and K. R. Choudhri, for the appellant R.L. Anand, D. R. Prem, R. H. Dhebar and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent MUDHOLKAR, J.- In this appeal by special leave from the judgment' of the High Court of Bombay affirming the conviction and sentences passed on the appellant in respect of offences under s. 161, Indian Penal Code and s. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corrupt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out a pipeline from the well provided arrangements are made for supply of water to the temple and the small dharmshala nearby . It is not clear whether a pump was set up by the Government and a pipeline laid out. But it is an admitted fact that the well has not been deepened. It is also admitted that the contractor used the well water for carrying on his work without obtaining any express permission of the trustees and by the time he finished the work the water level had gone down to a little below two feet. According to the complainant in February, 1957, the appellant had paid a visit to Tolkeshwar and during his visit he told the complainant to behave like other contractors evidently suggesting that he should also pay him certain percentage of his bills as a bribe. It is sufficient to say that both the courts have found that the appellant did not visit Tolkeshwar in February, 1957, but the High Court has held that the appellant did make a demand for bribe in June, 1957, when he visited Tolkeshwar and that the complainant has made a mistake regarding the date on which the bribe was demanded. On March 26, 1957 one Bhatia was posted as Overseer there and though on March 30, 195 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8, 1958, and February 9, 1959, and Mr. Chari again points out that there is no suggestion that any illegal gratification was demanded by the appellant before passing any of these bills. In the meanwhile reports that the work being done was unsatisfactory used to be made from time to time by the Overseer to the appellant. According to the prosecution when the appellant visited the site on January 5, 1959, during the absence of the complainant he asked the complainant's brother-in-law jaikishen, who was in charge of the work for ₹ 300/- to ₹ 400/-. Jaikishen, however, did not pay the money on the pretext that he had no funds with him. This story, it may be mentioned was not believed by the Special judge and no reference to it has been made in the judgment of the High Court. At about that time the appellant was asked to level the ground adjoining the staff quarters and also deepen the well. This was extra work and the complainant declined to do it. It is said that he was also asked to repair the temple and dharmshala and he refused to do that work also. On February 9, 1959, the complainant presented his ninth running bill which was for ₹ 22,000 odd. On March 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isited Bombay. On March 28, 1959, this postcard was brought to the notice of the appellant. He was going on a short leave and, therefore, he made an endorsement on that postcard that the complainant should be asked to see him on April 6, 1959, by which time he would be back on duty and that the complainant would be given the cheque on that day. On March 31, 1959, the appellant learnt that a cheque for ₹ 32,200 odd on account of the tenth running bill had been prepared and he, therefore, asked for payment of the bill also but the officer in charge did not hand over either of the cheques to him. Thereafter the complainant went to the anti-corruption department and lodged a complaint. On April 6, 1959, the complainant. went to the office of the appellant and saw him in his cabin. There the cheque was handed over by the appellant to the complainant. But before that., according to the complainant, he paid ₹ 1,000 in currency notes to the appellant. Having done that he came out and then certain police officials accompanied by panchas entered the room. On being required to produce the money by the police officials the appellant promptly took out the currency notes from his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he mere receipt of money has to be proved. A similar argument was raised before this Court in C. 1. Emden v. State of Uttar Pradesh ((1960) 2 S.C.R. 592). Dealing with it this Court has pointed out that what the prosecution has to prove is that the accused person has received gratification other than legal remuneration and that when it is shown that he has received a certain sum of money which was not a legal remuneration, then the condition prescribed by this section is satisfied. This Court then proceeded to observe: If the word gratification' is construed to mean money paid by way of a bribe then it would be futile or superfluous to prescribe for the raising of the presumption. Technically it may no doubt be suggested that the object which the statutory presumption serves on this construction is that the court may then presume that the money was paid by way of a bribe as a motive or reward as required by s. 161 of the Code. In our opinion this could not have been the intention of the Legislature in prescribing the statutory presumption under s. 4 (1) . This Court further said that there is yet another consideration which supports the construction placed by it. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inant. But that was merely by way of request and nothing more and that there is nothing to show that he was using his official position to coerce the complainant for doing this work. He has taken us through considerable portions of the evidence on record to show that the complainant was not the kind of man who could be easily cowed down and it is unthinkable that the appellant would have tried to use pressure tactics against the complainant either for doing some work for the temple or for obtaining illegal gratification for himself. And in this connection he referred in Particular to a reply sent by the complainant to the Director General of Light Houses. Then he points out that it has not been established that though bills worth a lakh of rupees or so were already passed for payment by the appellant, he had used any pressure for obtaining bribe. It would, therefore, not be reasonable to hold that the appellant had withheld the ninth bill just for coercing the complainant to pay a thousand rupees to him by way of illegal gratification. He then pointed out that actually on March 19, 1959, the appellant had applied to the Director General of Light Houses for permission to retire as f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the jury beyond 'reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. That, however, was a case where the question before the jury was whether a presumption of the kind which in India may be raised under s. 114 of the Evidence Act could be raised from the fact of possession of goods recently stolen, that the possessor of the goods was either a thief or receiver of stolen property. In the case before us, however, the presumption arises not under s. 114 of the Evidence Act but under s. 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is well to bear in mind that whereas under s. 114 of the Evidence Act it is open to the Court to draw or not to draw a presumption as to the existence of one fact from the proof of another fact and it is not obligatory upon the court to draw such presumption, under sub-s. (1) of s. 4, however, if a certain fact is proved, that is, where any gratification (other than legal gratification) or any valuable thing is proved to have been received by an accused person the court is required to draw a presumption that that person received that thing as a motive of reward such as is mentioned in s. 161 I.P.C. Therefore, the Court has no choice in the matter,, once it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved. It is a presumption of law and therefore it is obligatory on the court to raise this presumption in every case brought under s. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act because unlike the case of presumption of fact, presumptions of law constitute a branch of jurisprudence. These observations were made by this Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of the Madras High Court setting aside the conviction of an accused person under s. 161, I.P.C. In that case the accused, an Income-tax Officer, was alleged to have received a sum of ₹ 1,000 as bribe from an assessee whose case was pending before him. His defence was that he had taken that money by way of loan. The High Court found as a fact that the accused was in need of ₹ 1,000/- and had asked the assessee for a loan of that amount. It was of opinion that the versions given by the assessee and the accused were balanced, that the bribe seemed to tilt the scale in favour of the accused and that the evidence was not sufficient to show that the explanation offered cannot reasonably be rejected. This Court reversed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
