Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of Guruviah and Velusamy, village assistants convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case arose from a complaint by PW2 that the village administrative officer demanded Rs.600 for signing papers to transfer an electric connection, enabling PW2 to obtain a subsidy of Rs.625 every six months. The money was handed over to the appellants on the officer's instructions; they counted it and placed it in a shirt pocket. The trap officials apprehended them, and the money was recovered. The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2), and 12 of the Act, acquitting them under Section 7. The High Court upheld the conviction. The appellants argued that no demand was made by them, they were incompetent to grant any favour, and they believed the money was for land tax arrears. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, noting that the appellants' conduct—counting the money and filling the form after receipt—showed they were aware of the demand. The defence of land tax was false as the tax had been cancelled. The Court applied the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, holding that acceptance of undue advantage raises a presumption of corrupt motive. The acquittal under Section 7 was inconsequential. The Court distinguished Virendranath v. State of Maharashtra and relied on T. Shankar Prasad v. State of A.P., finding the appellants were part of a pre-planned device. The appeals were dismissed, and the appellants were directed to surrender to serve their remaining sentence.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Acceptance of Undue Advantage - The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 applies when a public servant accepts or obtains any undue advantage, and the burden shifts to the accused to prove the contrary. The fact that the demand was made by the co-accused does not preclude the presumption against the appellants who accepted the money. (Paras 7-9) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Conviction of Co-Accused - Circumstantial Evidence - The conviction of co-accused persons can be sustained even in the absence of direct evidence of demand and acceptance by them, if the circumstantial evidence, such as counting of money, handing over, and subsequent filling of forms, establishes their involvement in a pre-planned device to collect illegal gratification. (Paras 5-6, 9) C) Prevention of Corruption Act - False Defence - Aggravating Circumstance - Taking a false defence, such as claiming that the money was received towards arrears of land tax when such tax had been cancelled, is an aggravating circumstance against the accused. (Para 6) D) Prevention of Corruption Act - Acquittal under Section 7 - Effect on Presumption - The acquittal of the appellants under Section 7 of the Act is inconsequential and does not negate the presumption drawn under Section 20 of the Act, as the acceptance of undue advantage is sufficient to attract the presumption. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable when the demand for bribe was made solely by the co-accused and the appellants only received the money on his instructions.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the conviction of the appellants under Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellants were directed to surrender forthwith for serving out their remaining sentence.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 applies when public servant accepts undue advantage
- acquittal under Section 7 does not negate presumption
- false defence is aggravating circumstance
- mere absence of direct demand by accused not fatal if circumstantial evidence establishes involvement.
