GURUVIAHversusTHE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

746                       [2019]
               SUPREME COURT     10 S.C.R. 746
                              REPORTS                        [2019] 10 S.C.R.


A                                  GURUVIAH
                                          v.
      THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
                        (Criminal Appeal No. 1208 of 2019)
B                               AUGUST 20, 2019
               [ASHOK BHUSHAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
             Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7, 13(1)(d), 13(2)
      and 12 – Appellants (accused nos. 2 & 3) were village assistants in
      the office of the village administrative officer – PW-2 lodged
C
      complaint that the village administrative officer-since deceased
      (accused no.1) demanded Rs.600/- for signing the necessary papers
      to facilitate transfer of electric connection in his name – Village
      administrative officer came to the office along with accused no.3
      while accused no.2 waited at the office for both of them – Money
D     was handed over to accused no.2 on the instructions of the village
      administrative officer – Appellants apprehended by the trap officials
      immediately thereafter and the money was recovered – Appellants
      convicted u/ss. 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 12, however acquitted u/s.7 of
      the 1988 Act and s.109, IPC – On appeal, held: Significance of
      accused no.2 counting the money before handing it over to accused
E
      no.3 who put it in his shirt pocket, lay in the confirmation that the
      amount was in consonance with the demand, of which naturally the
      appellants were aware of – It was only after the money as demanded
      was paid that the accused no.3 filled up the form for transfer of the
      electric connection in the name of PW-2 and placed it before the
F     village administrative officer who then signed and put his seal on
      the same – PW-10, Inspector Crime Branch proved the trap
      proceedings and recovery – Defence of the appellants that they
      received the money in the bonafide belief that it was towards arrears
      of land tax is belied by the fact that land tax for the period in question
      had already been cancelled by the State Government – Taking of a
G
      false defence is a further aggravating circumstance against the
      appellants – Evidently the appellants were in league with the village
      administrative officer – Prosecution was therefore able to establish
      prima facie case against the appellants – Acquittal of the appellants
      u/s.7 of the 1988 Act, in the facts of the present case, is
H
                                         746
      GURUVIAH v. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE                            747
                INSPECTOR OF POLICE

inconsequential and cannot negate the presumption drawn against           A
them – Fact that PW-2 in his chief may not have named accused
no.2 is inconsequential – Appellants to surrender forthwith for
serving out their remaining sentence – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.7,
109.
     Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.20 – Presumption              B
under – Discussed.
      Dismissing the appeals, the Court
      HELD : 1.1 The significance of accused no.2 counting the
money before handing it over to accused no.3 who put it in his
shirt pocket, lay in the confirmation that the amount was in              C
consonance with the demand, of which naturally the appellants
were therefore aware of. It was only after the money as demanded
was paid that accused no.3 filled up the form for transfer of the
electric connection in the name of P.W.2 and placed it before the
village administrative officer who then signed and put his seal on        D
the same. At this moment, they were apprehended. The money
was handed over to the trap officials by the village administrative
officer after taking it back from accused no.3. Their hands were
dipped in the sodium carbonate solution, including the shirt of
the third accused, leading to change of colour of the solution
confirming that they were the same notes which were given to              E
P.W.2 by the trap officials. P.W.1 proved the sanction for the
prosecution. The mere absence of any specific statement by P.W.2
and the trap witness P.W.4 of any demand and acceptance by the
appellants, attributing the same only to the village administrative
officer can be of no avail to the appellants. P.W.10, Inspector           F
Crime Branch proved the trap proceedings and recovery. The
defence of the appellants that they had received the money in
the bonafide belief that it was towards arrears of land tax is belied
by the fact that land tax for the period in question had already
been cancelled by the State Government. The taking of a false
defence is a further aggravating circumstance against the                 G
appellants. The second contention that it is improbable that a
demand of Rs.600/- would have been made for a subsidy benefit
of Rs.625/- only, ignores the fact that it entitled P.W.2 for a subsidy
of Rs.625/- every six months. Evidently the appellants were in
                                                                          H
748            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2019] 10 S.C.R.


A     league with the village administrative officer. The contention that
      there was no demand or acceptance by the appellants or that it
      was in a bonafide belief merits no consideration. The prosecution
      was therefore able to establish a prima facie case against the
      appellants. Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
      provides that if an accused public servant has accepted or obtained
B
      for himself or for any other person any undue advantage from any
      person, there shall be a presumption unless the contrary is proved
      that he accepted or obtained that undue advantage as a motive of
      reward for performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly
      either by himself or by another public servant. The acquittal of
C     the appellants under Section 7 of the Act, in the facts of the present
      case, is inconsequential and cannot negate the presumption drawn
      against them. The fact that P.W.2 in his chief may not have named
      accused no.2 is considered inconsequential. The appellants are
      directed to surrender forthwith for serving out their remaining
      sentence. [Paras 5-7, 10] [751-A-H; 752-A; 753-D]
D
            T. Shankar Prasad v. State of A.P. (2004) 3 SCC
            753 : [2004] 1 SCR 419 – relied on.
            Virendranath v. State of Maharashtra (1996) 11 SCC
            688 – held inapplicable.
E                            Case Law Reference
      (1996) 11 SCC 688               held inapplicable       Para 3
      [2004] 1 SCR 419                relied on               Para 4
            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
F     No. 1208 of 2019.
           From the Judgment and Order dated 05.18.2018 of the Madurai
      Bench of Madras High Court in Crl. A (MD) No. 188 of 2008.
            With
G           Criminal Appeal No. 1209 of 2019.
           S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., M. P. Parthiban, Maniprabu, Santosh
      Parameshwaran, A. S. Vairawan, K. Pragadeesh, R. Sudhakaran, Hardik
      Gautam, Advs. for the Appellant.

H
      GURUVIAH v. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE                                   749
                INSPECTOR OF POLICE

       M. Yogesh Kanna, S. Partha Sarathy, S. Raja Rajeshwaran, Advs.            A
for the Respondent.
       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       NAVIN SINHA, J.
       1. The appellants, who are village assistants, challenge their            B
conviction under Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 12 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as “the Act”) with fine and a
default stipulation, sentencing them to one year of rigorous imprisonment.
The appellants have been acquitted of the charge under Section 7 of the
Act and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The village administrative
officer, accused no.1, was convicted under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2)           C
and 12 of the Act. He has since been deceased during the pendency of
his separate appeal.
        2. The appellants were village assistants in the office of the village
administrative officer, arrayed as accused 2 and 3. On 17.12.2003, P.W.
2 lodged a written complaint before the Additional Superintendent of             D
Police (Vigilance and Anti-Corruption) that the village administrative
officer had demanded a sum of Rs.600/- for signing the necessary papers
to facilitate transfer of electric connection in the name of the complainant.
The illegal gratification is stated to have been handed over to one of the
appellants on the instruction of the village administrative officer, and         E
who after counting it handed it over to the other appellant. They were
apprehended by the trap officials immediately thereafter and the money
recovered.
       3. Learned senior counsel Shri S. Nagamuthu, appearing for the
appellants, submitted that according to P.W.2 the demand had been                F
exclusively made by the village administrative officer alone. The latter
alone was competent to sign the necessary papers to facilitate transfer
of the electric connection. The appellants were menial assistants in his
office. There was no occasion for them to demand any illegal gratification
as they were incompetent to grant any favour to P.W.2. The appellants
had never made any demand for illegal gratification from P.W.2. They             G
had only received the money from P.W.2 on the instructions of the village
administrative officer in the bonafide belief that it was payment towards
demand of arrears of land tax, for which a receipt had already been
issued earlier without actual payment. In the absence of any proof for
                                                                                 H
750             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 10 S.C.R.


A     demand and acceptance by the appellants, they cannot be convicted on
      assumptions and presumptions. There is no proof of any conspiracy.
      Mere recovery from the appellants was not sufficient for conviction. It
      is unlikely that a demand of Rs.600/- would be made to facilitate a subsidy
      of Rs.625/-. Reliance in support of the submissions was placed on
      Virendranath vs. State of Maharashtra, 1996 (11) SCC 688.
B
              4. Shri M. Yogesh Kannan, learned counsel for the State, submitted
      that evidently the appellants were in league with the village administrative
      officer. Mere absence of direct evidence for demand and acceptance
      or conspiracy was irrelevant in view of the circumstantial evidence
      available and which unhesitatingly points towards the appellants as being
C     part of design for obtaining illegal gratification. The demand undoubtedly
      was made by the village administrative officer alone. The money was
      handed over to accused no.2 on his instructions. After counting the
      amount, accused no.2 handed over the money to appellant no.3 who put
      it in his shirt pocket. The application form was then filled up by accused
D     no.3 after which the village administrative officer signed and put seal.
      The transfer of electric connection would have facilitated P.W.2 to obtain
      a subsidy of Rs.625/- every six months. The defence of the appellants
      that the money was received bonafide in the belief that it was towards
      arrears of land tax for Fasli years 1412 and 1413 is falsified by the fact
      that taxation for the years in question had already been cancelled by the
E     State Government. Relying upon T. Shankar Prasad vs. State of A.P.,
      (2004) 3 SCC 753, it was submitted that the conviction and sentence of
      the appellants calls for no interference.
             5. We have considered the submissions and perused the materials
      on record. P.W.2 was desirous for transfer of the electric connection on
F     the land in question in his own name to facilitate a subsidy of Rs.625/-
      every six months. The village administrative officer was required to sign
      the necessary documents for the purpose. P.W.2 lodged a written
      complaint on 17.12.2003 against the village administrative officer alone
      for having demanded a sum of Rs.600/- as illegal gratification for the
G     purpose. P.W.2 lodged a written report regarding the same. Necessary
      mazhar was prepared. The appellants were village assistants in the
      office of the village administrative officer. The village administrative
      officer came to the office along with accused no.3 while accused no.2
      waited at the office for both of them. The money was handed over to
      accused no.2 on the instructions of the village administrative officer.
H
      GURUVIAH v. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE                                  751
        INSPECTOR OF POLICE [NAVIN SINHA, J.]

The significance of accused no.2 counting the money before handing it           A
over to accused no.3 who put it in his shirt pocket, lay in the confirmation
that the amount was in consonance with the demand, of which naturally
the appellants were therefore aware of. It was only after the money as
demanded was paid that accused no.3 filled up the form for transfer of
the electric connection in the name of P.W.2 and placed it before the
                                                                                B
village administrative officer who then signed and put his seal on the
same. At this moment, they were apprehended. The money was handed
over to the trap officials by the village administrative officer after taking
it back from accused no.3. Their hands were dipped in the sodium
carbonate solution, including the shirt of the third accused, leading to
change of colour of the solution confirming that they were the same             C
notes which were given to P.W.2 by the trap officials.
        6. P.W.1 proved the sanction for the prosecution. The mere absence
of any specific statement by P.W.2 and the trap witness P.W.4 of any
demand and acceptance by the appellants, attributing the same only to
the village administrative officer can be of no avail to the appellants.        D
P.W.10, Inspector Crime Branch proved the trap proceedings and
recovery. The defence of the appellants that they had received the
money in the bonafide belief that it was towards arrears of land tax is
belied by the fact that land tax for the period in question had already
been cancelled by the State Government. The taking of a false defence
is a further aggravating circumstance against the appellants. The second        E
contention that it is improbable that a demand of Rs.600/- would have
been made for a subsidy benefit of Rs.625/- only, ignores the fact that it
entitled P.W.2 for a subsidy of Rs.625/- every six months. Evidently the
appellants were in league with the village administrative officer.
       7. The contention that there was no demand or acceptance by the          F
appellants or that it was in a bonafide belief merits no consideration. The
prosecution was therefore able to establish a prima facie case against
the appellants. Section 20 of the Act provides that if an accused public
servant has accepted or obtained for himself or for any other person any
undue advantage from any person, there shall be a presumption unless            G
the contrary is proved that he accepted or obtained that undue advantage
as a motive of reward for performance of a public duty improperly or
dishonestly either by himself or by another public servant. The acquittal
of the appellants under Section 7 of the Act, in our opinion in the facts of
the present case, is inconsequential and cannot negate the presumption
                                                                                H
752             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 10 S.C.R.


A     drawn against them. The fact that P.W.2 in his chief may not have named
      accused no.2 is considered inconsequential.
             8. In Virendranath (supra), the venue for payment of the illegal
      gratification was at a restaurant. The illegal gratification on directions of
      the prime accused was handed over to the owner of the restaurant. The
B     acquittal of the restaurant owner by this Court was based on an entirely
      different reason which has no application to the facts of the present
      case. We consider it appropriate to set out the same below:
            “5. Insofar as A-2 is concerned, we find considerable merit in the
            contention raised on his behalf that he could have received the
C           money innocently from the complainant at the asking of A-1,
            without realising that it was bribe money. The argument prevails
            because the prosecution has nowhere led any other evidence of
            conduct or consistency of a behaviour from which it could be
            spelt out that A-2 was a habitual go-between in facilitating
            acceptance of bribe by A-1. This single instance which has been
D           brought forth does not reveal of any regularity of conduct of this
            nature. There thus exists an area of doubt, the benefit of which
            shall go to A-2. Accordingly, the appeal of A-2 is allowed and he
            is acquitted of the charges.”
             9. In T. Shankar Prasad (supra), the prime accused directed the
E     money to be handed over to the co-accused when both of them were
      caught on the spot and the money recovered from the co-accused. The
      co-accused took the plea that there was no proof of demand and
      acceptance against him. A similar defence was taken that he had
      accepted the same in the bonafide belief towards advance tax. Referring
F     to Section 20 of the Act, noticing that there was no material towards any
      advance tax liability, it was observed:
            “24. ….An overall consideration of the materials sufficiently
            substantiates, in the case on hand, the prevalence of a system and
            methodology cleverly adopted by the accused that the demand
G           will be specified when both the accused were present and
            thereafter as and when A-1 puts his signature the party has to
            meet A-2 at his seat for fixing the seal and making entry in the
            register to make the process complete only after collecting the
            amount already specified by A-1 in A-2’s presence. The
            involvement of both of them in a well-planned and cleverly
H
      GURUVIAH v. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE                                 753
        INSPECTOR OF POLICE [NAVIN SINHA, J.]

      managed device to systematically collect money stood sufficiently        A
      established on the evidence let in by the prosecution. Further, A-
      2 did not offer his explanation immediately after the recovery of
      money. A similar plea of receiving money as advance tax was
      rejected and affirmed by this Court in A. Abdul Kaffar v. State
      of Kerala. It was noted that such a stand was not taken at the
                                                                               B
      first-available opportunity and the defence was not genuine. In
      State of U.P. v. Dr G.K. Ghosh it was observed that in case of
      an offence of demanding and accepting illegal gratification,
      depending on the circumstances of the case, the court may feel
      safe in accepting the prosecution version on the basis of the oral
      evidence of the complainant and the official witnesses even if the       C
      trap witnesses turn hostile or are found not to be independent.
      When besides such evidence, there is circumstantial evidence
      which is consistent with the guilt of the accused and not consistent
      with his innocence, there should be no difficulty in upholding the
      conviction.”
                                                                               D
      10. We find no merit in the appeals, which are dismissed. The
appellants are directed to surrender forthwith for serving out their
remaining sentence.


Divya Pandey                                              Appeals dismissed.   E




                                                                               F




                                                                               G




                                                                               H