P. SARANGAPANI (DEAD) THR. LR PAKA SAROJAversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

                  [2023] 12 S.C.R. 433 : 2023 INSC 844



                             CASE DETAILS

        P. SARANGAPANI (DEAD) THR. LR PAKA SAROJA
                                      v.
                    STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 2173 of 2011)
                          SEPTEMBER 21, 2023
       [BELA M. TRIVEDI AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.]

                              HEADNOTES

     Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justified in
confirming the conviction of appellant-accused no.1 u/s. 7 and s.13(1)(d)
r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
     Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Allegation that appellant-
accused no.1 had demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.1500/- as
gratification other then legal remuneration from the defacto-
complainant – Trial Court convicted the appellant-accused no.1 for
the offences u/s. 7 and s.13(1)(d)r/w 13(2) of the 1988 Act – High Court
confirmed the conviction – Propriety:
      Held: In the instant case the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings were
duly proved by the prosecution by examining the concerned witnesses, who
had duly supported the case of prosecution – Both the courts below have
recorded the findings that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable
doubt the conscious acceptance of the tainted currency by the accused and
also the recovery of tainted currency from the appellant – Therefore, the
burden had shifted on the appellant to dispel the statutory presumption u/s. 20
of the said Act, and prove that it was not accepted as a motive or reward for
the performance of his public duty, which the appellant had failed to dispel
– The explanation offered by the appellant did not tally with the statement
of the complainant recorded u/s. 164 of Cr.PC. – The High Court had also
recorded that the defence taken by the appellant that the acceptance of tainted
currency by him was towards the Audit fees of the Society was not proved
by him in as much as there was nothing on record to show that the amount
                                     433
434          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 12 S.C.R.


paid by the complainant to the appellant was out of the funds of the Society
– Both the courts have appreciated the evidence on record threadbare in the
right perspective and have found the appellant guilty for the offence u/s. 7
and s.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act – No need to interfere with the well
considered findings recorded by both the courts below. [Paras 12 and 13]
    Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Death of the complainant or
non-availability of the complainant at the time of trial – Consequences:
      Held: It is well settled proposition of law that the death of the
complainant or non-availability of the complainant at the time of trial could
not be said to be fatal to the case of prosecution, nor could it be said to be
a ground to acquit the accused – It is always open for the prosecution to
prove the contents of the complaint and other facts in issue by leading other
oral or documentary evidence, in case of death of or non-availability of the
complainant. [Para 9]
      Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Raising of presumption u/s.
20:
      Held: 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 u/s. 20 that he accepted the
undue advantage as a motive or reward u/s. 7 for performing or to cause
performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly – No doubt, such
presumption is rebuttable. [Para 11]
       LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
     Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC
731 – followed.
    B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55: [2014] 4
SCR 554 – referred to.
       OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
              ORDER AND APPEARANCES
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.2173 of 2011.
       P. SARANGAPANI (DEAD) THR. LR PAKA SAROJA v.                     435
                STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

    From the Judgment and Order dated 21.03.2011 of the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in CRLA No.54 of 2005.
       Appearances:
    D. Ramakrishna Reddy, Hrithik Manchanda, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy,
Advs. for the Appellant.
    Sriharsha Peechara, Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, Duvvuri Subrahmanya
Bhanu, Ms. Pallavi, Ms. Kriti Sinha, Advs. for the Respondent.
        JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT

                              JUDGMENT

       BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
      1. The original appellant P. Sarangapani son of Laxmaiah (accused
no.1) having expired pending the present Appeal, his wife Paka Saroja was
permitted to proceed further with the Appeal as per the order passed by the
court on 31st August, 2023.
      2. The instant Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
  st
21 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
(hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court) in CC No.08 of 1994. The Trial
Court had convicted the appellant accused no.1 P.Sarangapani for the
offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d)r/w 13(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the PC Act) and sentenced him to
imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to suffer
Simple Imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 7 and
to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-
in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months for the offence
under Section 13(1)(d)r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act.
    3. The chargesheet for the alleged offences was laid by the Investigating
Officer, Deputy Superintendent of Police Shri P.L. Raju, Anti-Corruption
Bureau, Warangal Range, Warangal against the appellant accused no.1
436          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 12 S.C.R.


P.Sarangapani and one another accused P.Vasudev son of Mallaiah. The said
accused P.Vasudev having expired pending trial, the appellant accused alone
was tried by the Trial Court. The defacto-complainant Sri Immadi Laxmaiah
also had expired prior to commencement of the trial and therefore he could
not be examined by the prosecution.
      4. The case of prosecution in nutshell was that the appellant accused
Sri Sarangapani 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 Sri Immadi
Laxmaiah on 27.03.1993, for himself and for the accused no.2 P.Vasudev,
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.
      5. To prove the charges levelled against the appellant-accused, the
prosecution had examined PW-1 Shri Dana Pullaiah to prove the contents of
the RC No.1496/92-C. The PW-2 Sri M. Laxmi Narsu, one of the mediators
(panch witness) working as Agricultural Officer, in the office of Joint
Director Agriculture Khammam was examined to prove the pre-trap and
post-trap proceedings. The PW-3 Sri K.L.N. Krishna Kumar was examined
to prove the Sanction orders relating to the accused, accorded by the then
Secretary of Agriculture Cooperative – II Department. The PW-4 was Sri
B. Pulla Reddy, working as the President of Lachannagudem Village, who
succeeded the Vice President of the society, on the previous Vice President
B. Pulla Reddy having been suspended. The PW-5 was Sri V. Vengalaiah,
Inspector of Police ACB, a member of raiding party; and lastly PW-6 Sri
P.L. Raju, the then DSP Warangal Range, was examined as he was the trap
laying officer cum investigating officer. The prosecution had also adduced
documentary evidence in support of its case.
       6. On the closure of prosecution evidence, the appellant-accused
P.Sarangapani was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein he
had denied the allegations levelled against him and had stated that he was
falsely implicated. He also had filed a written statement contending inter
alia that he never demanded and accepted any illegal gratification from the
    P. SARANGAPANI (DEAD) THR. LR PAKA SAROJA v.                           437
    STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]

complainant as alleged. The appellant accused had also examined DW-1 Sri
K. Venkateshwarlu, resident of Chintakani Mandal of Khammam District,
to substantiate his defence.
      7. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral as well as the documentary
evidence adduced by the prosecution, held that the prosecution had proved
the charges levelled against the appellant/ accused beyond reasonable
doubt. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated
hereinabove. In the Appeal preferred by the appellant before the High
Court, against the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the High
Court reappreciated the evidence on record and confirmed the conviction
and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.
      8. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that both
the courts had committed gross error of law in misappreciating evidence on
record and in holding the appellant guilty of the alleged charges, though the
prosecution had miserably failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification
allegedly made by the appellant. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court
in case of B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, he submitted that it was
required to be proved by the prosecutor beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused had voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe, and
in absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification, presumption under
Section 20 could not be drawn against the accused. According to him in
the instant case, the complainant having expired before the commencement
of trial, could not be examined and hence the very allegation of demand
of money as bribe was not proved by the prosecution. The learned counsel
for the appellant placed reliance on the statement of complainant recorded
before the Additional I-Class Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. to
submit that the complainant himself had stated therein that he had paid the
amount to the accused towards the Audit fees of the society and that the
accused was falsely implicated by the former President of the society Pulla
Reddy, who had a grudge against the accused.
      9. In our opinion, there is no substance in any of the submissions made
by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is well settled proposition of law
that the death of the complainant or non-availability of the complainant at


1   (2014) 13 SCC 55
438            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 12 S.C.R.


the time of trial could be not said to be fatal to the case of prosecution, nor
could it be said to be a ground to acquit the accused. It is always open for
the prosecution to prove the contents of the complaint and other facts in
issue by leading other oral or documentary evidence, in case of death of or
non-availability of the complainant. Recently, the Constitution Bench in
case of Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) 2, has held
that: -
      “88.6. (f) In the event the complainant turns “hostile”, or has died or
      is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal
      gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other
      witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary
      evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial
      evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of
      acquittal of the accused public servant.”
      10. 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. Section 20 reads as under: -
      “20. Presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage.
      —
      Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or under
      section 11, it is proved that a public servant accused of an offence has
      accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other


2     (2023) 4 SCC 731
   P. SARANGAPANI (DEAD) THR. LR PAKA SAROJA v.                            439
   STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]

     person, any undue advantage from any person, it shall be presumed,
     unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or attempted
     to obtain that undue advantage, as a motive or reward under section
     7 for performing or to cause performance of a public duty improperly
     or dishonestly either by himself or by another public servant or, as
     the case may be, any undue advantage without consideration or for
     a consideration which he knows to be inadequate under section 11.”
      11. In view of the above, 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 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. No doubt, such presumption is rebuttable. The Constitution
Bench in Neeraj Dutta (supra), also had dealt with the issue of presumption
under Section 20 of the Act and held as under: -
     “88.7. (g) Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of
     the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption
     that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward
     as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised
     by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course,
     the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not
     apply to Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.”
      12. In the instant case the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings were duly
proved by the prosecution by examining the concerned witnesses, who had
duly supported the case of prosecution. Both the courts below have recorded
the findings that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt the
conscious acceptance of the tainted currency by the accused and also the
recovery of tainted currency from the appellant. Therefore, the burden had
shifted on the appellant to dispel the statutory presumption under Section 20
of the said Act, and prove that it was not accepted as a motive or reward for
the performance of his public duty, which the appellant had failed to dispel.
The explanation offered by the appellant did not tally with the statement of
the complainant recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The High Court had
also recorded that the defence taken by the appellant that the acceptance of
tainted currency by him was towards the Audit fees of the Society was not
440            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2023] 12 S.C.R.


proved by him in as much as there was nothing on record to show that the
amount paid by the complainant Immadi Laxmaiah to the appellant was out
of the funds of the Society.
      13. Both the courts have appreciated the evidence on record threadbare
in the right perspective and have found the appellant guilty for the offence
under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act. We do not
see any valid ground to interfere with the well considered findings recorded
by both the courts below.
     14. In that view of the matter, the criminal appeal being devoid of
merits is dismissed.


Headnotes prepared by:                                       Appeal dismissed.
Ankit Gyan