M. Sunderamoorthy v. The State of Tamil Nadu Through Inspector of Police

FATHIMA BEEVI, J. This appeal is directed against the judg-ment dated 27 .10.1979 of the High Court of Madras confirming the conviction of the appellant under section 161, I.P .C. and under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant had been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 15 months under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cor-ruption Act with no separate sentence under section 161 I.P.C. The brief facts of the case are as under.

The appellant, Sunderamoorthy was an Accountant-cum-Head-clerk in the Tamil Nadu Forest Training S.chool at Vaigai Dam. He took charge of the office on 6.10.1975 and had been residing in a house f" opposite the training schoof PW-3, the Principal of the training school

issued Ex. P-2 show cause notice to the PW-1, Venkataswamy, the canteen contractor, as to why his licence for running the canteen should not be cancelled. This was on the basis of a complaint made by the appellant that the food served in the canteen was substandard. The appellant had taken food in the canteen for two days and being dis-satisfied discontinued the practice before the notice was issued. The L__ prosecution case is that the accused thereafter sent for PW-1, informed

him that he would help him in restoring the licence and demanded a bribe of Rs.100. On 21.10.1975, the appellant is stated to have pressed the demand to PW-1. The latter made a complaint to PW-6 who there-upon arranged a trap. As instructed, PW-1 was ready with ten rupees currency notes. PW-6 after drawing up a mahazar in the' presence of PW-2, Jaganathan, Assistant of the Office of the Special Tehsildar, .... Usilampatti directed PW-1 to give the notes to the appellant. PW-1

handed over the money to the appellant who received the same. When PW-1 emerged, PW-6 along with PW-2 confronted the appellant. The appellant produced the currency notes. PW-6 conducted the phenol-phthalein test with reference to the fingers of the appellant. The test was positive, the currency notes were seized and the appellant r _arrested. PW-3, the Principal produced the concerned file relating to

show cause notice, from the house of the appellant on the same day. Finally, the appellant was chargesheeted.

ii.

At the trial, the prosecution witnesses supported the case. PW-I affirmed the fact that the appellant· made the demand and had also received the amount on 22.10.1975. The recovery of the currency notes from the appellant was not challenged. The plea of the appellant was that PW-1 had returned the amount due to him and there had been no demand for a bribe as there had been no occasion for doing so. The Trial Court accepted the l'rosecution evidence, rejected the plea of the appellant and recorded the conviction. Before the High Court, the con-tentions of the appellant w~re that there was no independent evidence regarding the demand, the messenger who had contacted PW-1 at the behest of the appellant had not been examined, the solitary evidence of PW-1 is-insufficient, the explanation offered by the appellant was probable and there is no conclusive evidence to hold that the appellant, was guilty. lt was also urged that the appellant being new in the office could exert little influence on the Principal and the whole story is, therefore improbable. These contentions did not find favour with the High Court. It took the vir.w that the evidence of PW-I find corrobora-tion in the testimony of PW-2 and 6 and the contemporary records. The recovery of the currency notes from the appellant proves the guilty conduct of the apJ?ellant in view of the presumption arising under section 4( 1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act which has not been rebutted. The decisions of the Court in State of Rajasthan v. Mohamed Habeeb, [1973] Crl. L.J. 703; C.I. Emden v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1960 SC 548 and Lohana Kantilal v. State, AIR. 1954 ,_ Saurashtra 121 were referred to. The High Court thought that though the conviction under section 161 I.P.C. and section 5(2) of the Preven-tion of Corruption Act is to be maintained, no separate sentence need be awarded under section 161 LP .C.

The appellant h~< reiterated the contentions before us. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however, maintained that the appellant had a consistent case even from the earliest opportunity that the currency notes found in his possession was the money returned by PW-I, the circumstances of the case would probablise this case of the appellant and the presumption, if any, arising under section 4 is rebutted and the conviction cannot therefore be sustained. PW-6 has stated at the time of the seizure the explanation offered by the appel-lant was that PW-I had reiurned the loan and that he had given the money for the Dipawali. The case that has been developed in the course of the trial is not that of a Joan transaction but payment of an advance of Rs. 125 in the canteen when the appellant started to take food there. The case of Dipawali gift or return of a loan given to PW-I has not been even suggested. It cannot, therefore, be said that there had been consistent explanation for the appellant. PW-3, the Principal has averred in unequivocal terms that Ex.P-2 memo had been issued on ·the basis of the complaint received from the appellant that on getting the explanation from PW-1 he on 18.10.1975 itself passed orders and closed the file. The order made was not disclosed to PW-I and till 22.10.1975, the file itself was kept by the appellant in his personal custody. He had thereafter received the amount ofRs.100 from PW-1. This conduct of the appellant is clearly inconsistent with the transac-tion of loan or return of money by PW-1.

This Court observed in Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1964 SC 575 as under:

"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 the person received that thing as a motive of reward such as is mentioned in §ection 161, I.P.C. Therefore, the Court has no choice in the matter, once it is established that the accused person has received a sum of money which was not due to him as a legal remuveration. Of course, it is open to that person to show that though that money was not due to him as legal remuneration it was legally due to .him in some other manner or that he had received it under a transaction or an arrangement which was lawful. The burden resting on the accused person in such a case would not be as light as it is where a presumption is raised under section 114 of Evidence Act and cannot be held to be dis-charged merely by reason of the fact that the explanation 1J offered by the accused is reasonable and probable. it must further be shown that the exr..Janation is a true one. The words 'unless the contrary is proved' which occur in this provision make it clear that the presumption has to be rebutted by 'proof' and not by a bare explanation which is merely plausible. A fact is said to be proved when.its exis-tence is directly established or when upon the material before it the Court finds its existence to be so probable that a reasonable man would act on the supposition that it exists. Unless, therefore, the explanation is supported by proof, the presumption created by the provision cannot be said to be rebutted."

rll On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances, we are

not satisfied that the appellant had even by preponderance of proba-bility succeeded in rebutting the presumption.

The argument that clause (d) of section 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not attracted on the proved facts is also not impressive.

We find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 818 of 1979.

From the Judgment & Order dated the 27.10.1979 of the Madras High Court in Crl. A. No. 4 of 1977.

A.S. Nambiar and K.R. Nambiar for the Appellant.

V. Krishnamurthy for the Respondent.