Appellant's Failure to Dispel Statutory Presumption Under Section 20 of PC Act - Conviction, Upheld - Supreme Court

In a recent verdict, the Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction of the appellant, emphasizing that the appellant had failed to dispel the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The judgment, delivered by Justices BELA M. TRIVEDI and DIPANKAR DATTA, reaffirmed the importance of statutory presumptions in cases involving public servants accused of accepting undue advantage.

The appellant, a former Sub Registrar of Cooperative Societies, had been accused of accepting money as a bribe. The case revolved around allegations that the appellant had demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.1500/- as gratification for allowing the complainant to continue as the President of a cooperative society. While the complainant had passed away before the trial, the prosecution sought to prove the charges through other means.

The defense rested on the appellant's denial of the demand for illegal gratification. However, the prosecution relied on the statutory presumption provided by Section 20 of the PC Act, which presumes that a public servant accused of an offence accepted undue advantage as a motive or reward for performing or causing the performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly. This presumption, though rebuttable, played a crucial role in the case.

The court noted that the appellant had failed to provide a reasonable and probable explanation for accepting the money, other than as illegal gratification. The evidence presented during the trial, including pre-trap and post-trap proceedings, supported the prosecution's case. The court held that once the undue advantage was proven to have been accepted by the accused, the burden shifted to the appellant to dispel the statutory presumption under Section 20, which he failed to do.

In its verdict, the Supreme Court stated, "It cannot be gainsaid that if the accused offers a 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." However, in this case, the court found that the appellant's explanation did not align with the evidence presented.

The judgment further clarified that the death of the complainant or non-availability during trial does not absolve the prosecution of its duty to prove the case. The court's decision underscored the significance of statutory presumptions in corruption cases involving public servants.

With the appellant's challenge dismissed, the Supreme Court concluded that the conviction under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act would stand. The ruling serves as a reminder of the legal principles surrounding corruption cases and the importance of providing a credible defense when statutory presumptions come into play.

Date of Decision: September 21st, 2023

SARANGAPANI (DEAD) vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH      

• Lawyer E- News Android Mobile App
• Latest Legal News

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/21-Sep-2023_Paka_Saroja_Vs_State.pdf"]