Case Law Details
P. Sarangapani (Dead) Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (Supreme Court of India)
Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that once the undue advantage i.e., any gratification whatever, other than the legal remuneration is proved to have been accepted by the accused, the Court is entitled to raise the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, that he accepted the undue advantage as a motive or reward under Section 7, for performing or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly.
Facts: In present facts of the case, the instant Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st March, 2011 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2005, whereby the High Court had dismissed the Appeal filed by the appellant-accused no.1 and confirmed the judgment and order dated 06.01.2005 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court Hyderabad. The Trial Court had convicted the appellant accused no.1 for the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d)r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The case of prosecution in nutshell was that the appellant accused while discharging his duty as the Sub Registrar, Cooperative Societies had demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.1500/- as gratification other then legal remuneration from the defacto-complainant on 27.03.1993, for himself and for the accused no.2, the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies in the office of Divisional Cooperative Khammam, as a motive or reward for showing an official favour, in allowing the complainant to continue as the President of the Society, and thereby both the accused had committed the offence under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d)r/w 13(2) of the PC Act.
In the instant case the appellant/ accused in his explanation under Section 313 had accepted the receipt of alleged amount. The court therefore was required to appreciate the evidence laid by the prosecution in the light of the said explanation and to consider as to whether the said amount was an illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration or not. It cannot be gainsaid that if the accused offers reasonable and probable explanation based on the evidence that the money was accepted by him other than as illegal gratification, the benefit of doubt should be granted to the accused. It is also true that the accused is not required to establish his defence beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution, and can establish the same on the preponderance of probability. However, the court cannot be oblivious to the statutory presumption permissible to be raised under Section 20 of PC Act with regard to the motive of the accused.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
