Holding

The High Court’s conviction was justified because the recovery of the money shifted the statutory presumption to the accused, which he failed to rebut, establishing his guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Summary

Krishna Ram, a Patwari, was accused of demanding and accepting Rs.500 as a bribe for issuing a favourable land lease report. The complainant, Gurmukh Singh, arranged a trap in which the money was marked with phenolphthalein and handed to the accused, who was later caught with the cash and a pink‑stained shirt. The trial court acquitted him, but the Rajasthan High Court convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the evidence proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and whether the statutory presumption under Section 20 shifted to the accused after the money was recovered. The Court held that the complainant’s testimony was consistent, the forensic evidence reliable, and the presumption rightly shifted, which the accused failed to rebut. Consequently, the conviction was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Issues considered

The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Whether the recovery of the alleged bribe money from the accused' possession shifts the burden of proof to the accused under Section 20 of the Act.
Whether an appellate court may set aside an acquittal under Section 378 of the CrPC when the material on record leads to a sole and inescapable conclusion of guilt.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 378
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(1)(d), s. 13(2), s. 20, s. 7

Subjects

briberyillegal gratificationprevention of corruptionburden of proofsection 20 presumptionappeal against acquittalevidence reliabilityphenolphthalein testpublic servant

Judgment

[2009] 4 S.C.R. 457

KRISHNA RAM A
V.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 2001
MARCH 17, 2009
B
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND B. SUDERSHAN
REDDY, JJ.]

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 7, 13(1)(d) rlw
13(2) and 20 - Prosecution for demand and acceptance of
illegal gratification - Tainted money recovered from the c
possession of accused - Acquittal by trial court - Conviction
by High Court - On appeal, held: Conviction justified -
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification proved -
Evidence of prosecution witnesses are consistent and reliable
- Once recovery of money from the possession of accused D
was proved, the burden of presumption uls 20 shifted on the
accused and the accused failed to rebut that presumption.
Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 378 - Appeal
against acquittal - Scope of - Held: If two views are possible, E
one for acquittal and the other for conviction, appellate court
not to interfere with unless the material on record leads to sole
and inescapable conclusion of guilt of the accused.
Appellant-accused was prosecuted ulss. 7 and 13 (1)
(d) r/w s. 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Trial F
court found the appellant not guilty and hence acquitted
him. High Court convicted him. Hence the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
,, i HELD: 1.1 The view taken by the trial court drawn on G
the evidence on record is unreasonable and perverse and
the High Court has rightly interfered with the order of
acquittal and convicted the appellant under Sections 7
457 H
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R

A and 13(1 )(d) rlw Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988. (Para 11] (446-C-D]
Kalyan Singh v. State of M. P (2006) 13 SCC 303; T
Subramanian v. State of TN. (2006) 1 SCC 401; State
represented by Inspector of Police, Pudukottai, TN. v. A.
B Parthiban (2006) 11 SCC 473 - referred to.

1.2 The evidence of the complainant is found to be
consistent and impeachable regarding the demand of
Rs.5001- by the appellant as bribe money for giving
c favourable report in regard to the grant of permanent lease
holder rights of the land to the complainant. His evidence
is supported by contemporaneous documents prepared
by the Investigating Officer before the money was
delivered to the appellant. The complainant emphatically
denied the suggestion of the appellant that Rs.5001- was
D
sent to the appellant by DW-1 as repayment of the loan
amount. The complainant, the investigating Officer and
other witnesses who were present when the appellant
was caught red handed by the Anti Corruption Team have
been cross-examined at length by the defence, but
E nothing tangible has been extracted from their evidence
to create any shadow of doubt that they are not truthful
witnesses. They have given reliable and consistent
version of the crime and their evidence inspires •
confidence. [Para 9] (465-F-G-H; 466-A]
F
1.3 Once it is proved that the money was recovered
from the possession of the appellant, the burden of
presumption as contemplated uls. 20 of the P.C. Act, 1988
shifts upon the appellant, which he could not rebut
G
through cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses
or by adducing reliable and convincing evidence to prove
..
that DW-1 advanced Rs.500/- as loan to the appellant
through the complainant. (Para 9] (464-H; 465-A]
1.4 DW-1 ha~ not given any reason why he chose
H the complainant alcne to deliver a sum of Rs.5001- to the
KRISHNA RAM V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 459

appellant on the day when he was apprehended by the A
Anti Corruption Team. In these circumstances, the High
Court has rightly concluded that the explanation given
by the appellant was not probable and reasonable. [Para
9] [465-A-B]
Case Law Reference B

(2006) 13 sec 303 Referred to. Para 6
(2006) 1 sec 401 Referred to. Para 6
(2006) 11 sec 473 Referred to. Para 10 c
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 402 of 2001
From the Judgement and Order dated 22.12.2000 I
12.01.2001 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Crl.
0
A. No. 673 of 1999.
Manoj Prasad, lshar Singh, K.K. Srivastava, Janesh Singh,
for the Appellant. ·
Manish Singhvi, AAG, Milind Kumar, Aruneshwar Gupta, E
for the Respondent.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated F
22.12.2000 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at
Jodhpur in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 673of1999 by which the
learned Single Judge of the High Court has set aside the order
of acquittal of the accused and convicted him for offences under
i ~ • Sections 7 and 13(1)(0) read with Section 13(2) of the G
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [for short "P.C. Act, 1988"]
and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine,
the accused shall suffer further simple imprisonment for two
months.
H
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R.

A 2. Brief facts, which led to the trial of the accused, are as
under:
2.1] Krishna Ram - accused-appellant herein in the year
1991 was posted as Patwari and was lncharge of the Revenue
Circle 84 RBB Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
B On 20.03.1991, Gurmukh Singh-complainant [PW-2], resident
of 85, RB visited the Rajasthan State Investigation Bureau (SB)
Ganganagar Post and submitted an application to Hazari Lal •
[PW-8], Inspector Chowki lncharge in which he stated that he
was holder of land measuring 10 bighas 5 biswas in Chak 85
C RB and land measuring 12.5 bighas in Lakha Tiba on the basis
of temporary cultivation lease. He wanted to convert his
temporary lease into permanent lease for which purpose he filled
in the requisite application form (Exhibit P7) and presented the
same before Shri Jagmal Singh [PW-9], the Sub-Divisional
D Officer, Raisinghnagar, who in turn marked it to the Tehsi/dar,
Raisinghnagar and handed over the original application to the
complainant. The Tehsi/dar in turn marked the application to
the Patwari concerned.
2.2] On 18.03.1991, PW-2 approached the appellant
E (Patwari) and presented the application (Ex.-P-7) to him for
giving his report thereon. The complainant alleged that the
appellant had demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- as bribe money
for giving favourable report in his (complaints) favour in regard
to allotment of the lands to him on permanent lease holders
F rights. PW-2 pleaded to the appellant that he did not possess
enough money to meet his demand whereupon the appellant
asked the complainant to come to his house with an amount of
Rs.500/- instead of Rs.1,000/- as demanded by him on an earlier
occasion. It was also stated by the complainant that he was not
G willing to pay the bribe money to the appellant and wanted to • •
get him apprehended by the police for demanding illegal
gratification and it was with that sole object that the complaint
(Ex.-P-13) came to be presented to PW-8 Hazari Lal-Inspector,
Bureau lncharge of C'howki, Ganganagar. On receipt of the
H complaint of the comµlainant, PW-8 summoned Askaran (PW-
KRISHNA RAM V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 461
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.)

1) and Raje Ram (PW-3) employees of UIT, Ganganagar, who A
were introduced to the complainant and they were apprised of
complete gist of the complaint. Both the witnesses had voluntarily
agreed to participate in the trap proceedings proposed to be
laid against the appellant. Four currency notes of Rs.100/-
denomination and two notes of Rs.50/- denomination, i.e. total B ·
amounting to Rs.500/-, were arranged by the complainant for
payment to the appellant. The Bureau employees then treated
the currency notes with phenolphthalein powder which were kept
in the left side pocket of the complainant's shirt who was
instructed not to touch the money any more and the same shall
be handed over to the appellant on his demand. The complainant C
was asked to give a signal to the members of the trapping party
soon after payment of money to the appellant by putting his hand
on his turban. The witnesses were also instructed to stand close
by to the complainant to enable the police party to apprehend
the appellant red handed. Thereafter, the trapping party reached D
near Gulbadiwali Haveli at Raisinghnagar where the appellant
was residing. The appellant at that time was sitting with two or
three persons in his house, but the complainant asked him to
come outside the room on the first floor of the house and the
members of the trapping party remained standing downstairs. E
Thereafter, upon signal being received from the complainant,
the members of the trapping party immediately reached near to
J the appellant where PW-8 questioned him in the presence of
the witnesses present there if he had accepted Rs.500/- as bribe
from complainant Gurmukh Singh. The appellant's first stand . F
was that Gurmukh Singh had given him Rs.500/- for making a
favourable report on his application for allotment of land to him,
but then hesitatingly he turned around and replied that Rs.500/-
was paid to him as loan amount. The complainant reiterated
and reasserted that on demand made by the appellant, he had
• i given Rs.500/- as an illegal gratification to the appellant for doing G
his work. He stated that the appellant had accepted the amount
and after counting the currency notes he pocketed them in left
side pocket of his bushirt. The police constable immediately
held both the wrists of the appellant and that appellant's hands
turned pink when dipped in sodium carbonate solution, as a H
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S. C.R.

A result whereof the solution also turned pink colour. The appellant
was asked to take out the money from the pocket of his bushirt
and on counting the currency notes they were found to be the
same which were paid by the complainant to the appellant. On
personal search of the appellant, a sum of Rs.227/- was also
8 found in his pocket, besides Rs.500/- the bribe money. The
bushirt of the appellant was dipped in the solution of sodium
carbonate which also turned into pink colour and was taken into
possession as an evidence. The relevant record was also taken
in possession from the appellant. Site Plan was prepared after
conducting search of the room occupied by the appellant. The
C materials seized as evidence were kept in the Malkhana. FIR
(Ex.P-16) was prepared and registered against the appellant
in the police station at Head Office at Jaipur. The sample bottles
were sent to Forensic Laboratory, Jaipur, and on receipt of the
report (Exhibit P-17) and after completion of all the required
D formalities, charge sheet was presented against the appellant
in the court.
2.3] The appellant during the trial denied the charges and
claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as ten
witnesses and produced 19 documents and 12 articles as
E exhibits. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 denied his
involvement in the commission of the offence. He pleaded that
there was some dispute regarding felling of a tree from the field •
of one Gorai which on spot inspection of the appellant was found
F lying in the field of the complainant and, therefore, it was in this
background that an attempt was made by the complainant to
involve the appellant in a false case. He, examined Ramchandra
(DW-1) in his defence and got two documents exhibited as D-1
and D-2.
G 3. Learned trial judge, on analysis of the entire oral and
documentary evidence on record, found the appellant not guilty
. '

of the charges under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section
13 (2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and accordingly acquitted him.
H 4. The State of Rajasthan, being dissatisfied with the
KRISHNA RAM V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 463
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J]

acquittal of the appellant, preferred S.B. Criminal Appeal No. A
67~ of 1999 in the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur Bench.
By judgment and order dated 22.12.2000, a learned Single
Judge of the High Court has set aside the order of the trial court
and held the appellant guilty of offences under Sections 7 and
13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act of 1988 and B
imposed the aforesaid sentence upon him.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant is before us by way of
this appeal.
6. Mr. Manoj Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, C
contended that the judgment of the High Court reversing the
well-reasoned order of acquittal passed by the trial court is
erroneous in law being against the well-established principles
with regard to interference in appeal under Section 378 of the
Criminal Procedure Code. In support of the contentions, reliance
is placed on two decisions of this Court in Ka/yan Singh v.. D
State of M.P [(2006) 13 SCC 303] and T Subramanian v. State
of TN. ((2006) 1 SCC 401]. We have gone through the said
decisions. There cannot be any quarrel with the settled
propositions of law that if on appraisal of the evidence and on
considering relevant attending circumstances it is found that two E
views are possible one as held by the trial court for acquitting
the accused and the other for convicting the accused, in such a
situation, the rule of prudence should guide the High Court not
to disturb the order of acquittal made by the trial court. It is also
equally well-settled that where the material on record leads to a F
sole and inescapable conclusion of guilt of the accused, the
judgment of acquittal will call for interference by the appellate
court.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant next contended
that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove beyond G
reasonable doubt that the appellant had made any demand of
bribe from the complainant as alleged by him and therefore, the
presumption as contemplated under Section 20 of the P.C. Act,
1988 has wrongly been applied by the High Court against the
appellant and in favour of the prosecution. In support of this H
.

,;54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 4 S.C.R.

A submission, reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in T.
Subramanian v. State of T.N. [(2006) 1 SCC 401]. This Court •
in the above cited case, while considering the case of the
accused for offences under Section Ss. 5(1 )(d) read with Section
5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, has held that the
.B accused had offered reasonable and probable explanation
based on the evidence that the money was accepted by him as
lease rent arrears and not illegal gratification.
8. In the light of the above settled propositions of law, we
have made independent scrutiny of the evidence in the present
c case to find out whether the High Court's order of conviction of
the appellant can be sustained or not.
9. Gurumukh Singh (PW-2) has proved on record that on
demand of the appellant, he had paid Rs.500/- to him as illegal
gratification, for recording favourable report on the application
D marked to the appellant by Tehsildarfor allotment of permanent
lease to the complainant. Four currency notes of Rs.1 OD/-
denomination and two currency notes of Rs.SO/- denomination
were handed over to the appellant by PW-2 on the day of the
incident, which before giving to him were treated by the trapping
E party with phenolphthalein powder. The trapping party on search
of the pocket of bushirt of the appellant recovered those currency
. notes from his personal possession. At the first instance, the
appellant had admitted his guilt, but recovering swiftly he
changed his stand and stated to the Investigating Officer that •
the money was handed over to him by the complainant as loan
F
amount on behalf of DW-1. It is the evidence of DW-1 that except
the money in question no money transaction ever took place
between him and the appellant. Thus, it is proved that a sum of
Rs.500/- was recovered by the officials of Anti-Corruption
Bureau [for short "ACB"] from the bushirt pocket of the appellant
G on the day of incident. Once it is proved that the money was
recovered from the possession of the appellant, the burden of • •
presumption as contemplated under Section 20 of the P.C. Act,
1988 shifts upon the appellant, which he could not rebut through
cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses or by adducing
H reliable and convincing evidence to prove that DW-1 advanced
KRISHNA RAM V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 465
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

Rs.500/- as loan to the appellant through the complainant. OW- A
1 Ram Chandra, has not given any reason why he chose the
complainant alone to deliver a sum of Rs.500/- to the appellant
on the day when he was apprehended by the Anti Corruption
Team. In these circumstances, the High Court has rightly
concluded that the explanation given by the appellant was not B
probable and reasonable. The currency notes of Rs.500/- were
recovered from the possession of the appellant which were got
treated with phenolphthalein powder by PW Hazari Lal-Inspector
in the presence of the witnesses. The members of the trapping
party alongwith complainant went to the house of the appellant C
at Raisingh Nagar where the bribe money was handed over to
the appellant by the complainant. PW-8 introduced himself to
the appellant and asked him if he had accepted bribe money
from the complainant, the appellant replied that it was not bribe
money but the amount of loan repayment. The complainant has
categorically stated that it vvas not loan amount but bribe money D
demanded by the appellant from him. The appellant took out
the currency notes of Rs.500/- from tha pocket of his bushirt in
presence of the witnesses. The numbers of the notes recovered
had matched with the numbers noted in the ACB office before
the complainant handed over them to the appellant. The bushirt E
worn by the appellant was washed in sodium carbonate solution
, and same turned into pink colour. The evidence of the
complainant is found to be consistent and impeachable
regarding the demand of Rs.500/- by the appellant as bribe
money for giving favourable report in regard to the grant of F
permanent lease holder rights of the land to the complainant.
His evidence is supported by contemporaneous documents
prepared by the Investigating Officer before the money was
delivered to the appellant. The complainant empathetically
denied the suggestion of the appellant that Rs.500/- was sent
to the appellant by DW-1 as repayment of the loan amount. The G
complainant, the Investigating Officer and other witnesses who
were present when the appellant was caught red handed by the
Anti Corruption Team have been cross-examined at length by
the defence, but nothing tangible has been extracted from their
evidence to create any shadow of doubt that they are not truthful H
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R.

A witnesses. They have given reliable and consistent version of
the crime and their evidence inspires confidence.
10. In State represented by Inspector of Police,
Pudukottai, TN. v. A. Parthiban [(2006) 11 SCC 473] this Court
has held that every acceptance of illegal gratification, whether
B preceded by a demand or not, would be covered by Section 7
of the Act. But, if the acceptance of an illegal gratification is in
pursuance of a demand by the public servant, then it would also
fall under Section 13(1 )(d) of the P.C. Act.
11. Having regard to the entire evidence discussed above
C and having carefully and closely considered the judgments of
the trial court and the High Court, it appears that the view taken
by the trial court drawn on the evidence on record is found to be
unreasonable and perverse and the High Court has rightly
interfered with the order of acquittal and convicted the appellant
D under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the
P.C. Act, 1988.
12. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, instead
of imposing separate sentence upon the appellant under
Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988, has in his wisdom
E imposed sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment with a
fine of Rs. 500/- upon the appellant under Section 13(2) of the
P.C. Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine, the appellant
shall undergo two months further simple imprisonment.
13. No other point has been raised by the appellant. We,
F
thus, find no merit and substance in any of the submissions made
on behalf of the appellant.
14. In the result, for the afore-stated reasons, there is no
merit in this appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
l •
G 15. The accused appellant is on bail, granted by this Court
by order dated 30th March, 2001. He shall be taken into custody
forthwith to serve out the remaining part of the substantive
sentence.

K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.