STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHversusR. JEEVARATNAM

A                       ST ATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                         V.
                               R. JEEV ARATNAM

                                  JULY 30, 2004

B               [S.N. VARIAVA AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.)
         Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:

          S. 7, s. l 3(J}(d) r/w. s.13(2)--Pub/ic servant demanding and accepting
    illegal gratification-Accused, Secretary of a Port Trust demanding bribe
C   to clear tender of a company-Trap laid by CBI and accused caught with
    marked currency-Trial court convicting the accused-Acquittal by High
    Court holding that there was no proof of demand-Held, the evidence of
    complainant and another independent witness clearly established demand
    and acceptance of money-Accused convicted of the offences charged.

D        S.20(1)--Presumption--Applicability of

        Respondent, at the relevant time, was Secretary of a Port Trust
  and a member of its Tender Committee. The said Port Trust floated
  a tender in response to which the Company, whereof the complainant
  was the Manager, submitted its quotation which was the lowest. The
E prosecution case was that the respondent demanded money from the
  complainant as bribe to clear his company's file and asked him to pay
  Rs. 10,000 in advance in a particular hotel on a given date; that the
  complainant reported the matter to the Central Bureau oflnvestigation
  which laid a trap and ca_ught the respondent in the said hotel with
  marked currency of Rs. 10,000 in his brief case. The trial court
F convicted the resv,md_ent and sentenced him to R.I. for two years on
  each count and t~. pay. a fine of Rs. 3000 on each count. The appeal
  filed by the respondent was allowed by the High Court holding that
  before the respondent-accused was stated to have .demanded the
  money, the file of the company had already been cleared to the
G knowledge of the complainant and, therefore, the question of doing or
  not doing favour did not arise and that the evidence did not establish
  that any demand was raised. Aggrieved, the State filed the present
  appeal.

         Allowing the appeal and convicting the respondent of the offences
H charged, the Court
                                         232
               STATE OF A.P. v. R. JEEVARA TNAM                    233
       HELD : 1. The High Court was entirely wrong in coming to the A
conclusion that there was no proof of demand. The evidence of P.W. 1,
i.e., the complainant, and P.W.2, an independent witness and who had
acted as a Panch witness, clearly established demand and acceptance of
money. P.W.1. has deposed about the demand made on 23rd December,
1991 and it being repeated on 30th Decem her, 1991 when the respondent B
asked him to pay at least Rs. 10,000 on 31st December, 1991 in the
named hotel. The evidence of P.Ws. 1and2, to the effect, that when the
respondent came into the hotel room and asked P.W.l whether he had
brought the money demanded as bribe, P.W.1 introduced P.W. 2 as the
Group Finance Manager, who had come from Bombay and had brought C
Rs. 10,000 as demanded, and the further evidence that the respondent
assured that the file would be cleared, clearly establish that there was
a demand and receipt of the money was as a bribe. On this evidence
which has not been shaken in cross-examination, besides the offence
under s.7, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 had also been made out. The D
High Court erred in acquitting the respondent merely on the basis of
conjectures and surmises. [236-F-H; 237-C-F; 238-D-E)

     2. The Respondent was caught red-handed with the marked money
in a briefcase carried by him. The presumption under Section 20(1) of E
the Act thus arose. The High Court unfortunately overlooked this aspect.
The submission made on behalfofthe respondent, that the presumption
under Section 20 does not arise in a case under Section 13(l)(d) of the
Act and that for an offence under Section 13(l)(d) the demand had also
to be proved, overlooks the fact that the respondent had been accused
of an offence under Section 7 also which offence was proved to have F
been committed. The only condition for drawing the presumption is
that during trial it should be proved that the accused had accepted or
agreed. to accept any gratification. [237-G; 238-B; 236-CJ

     State of Andhra Pradesh v. C. Uma Maheswara Rao, [2004) 4 sec G
399 and Raghubir Singh v. State of Punjab, [1974] 4 SCC 560, relied on.

    Subhash Parbat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat, [2002) 5 SCC 86, cited.

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
1os1 of 1998.                                             H
    234                SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A        From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.1997 of the Andhra
    Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1995.

          A.D.N. Rao and B.V. Bairam Das for the Appellant.

          Mahendra Anand, S. Sadasiva Reddy and Mrs. S. Usha Reddy for the
B Respondent.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        S. N. VARIAVA, J. : This Appeal is against the Judgment dated l 0th
    December, 1997 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
c         Briefly stated the facts are as follows:

         The Respondent was, at the relevant time, functioning as the
  Secretary of Visakhapatnam Port Trust. He was also a Member of the
  Tender Committee. He was also officiating as the Secretary of the Board
D of Trustees of Visakhapatnam Port Trust. The Visakhapatnam Port Trust
  had floated a tender, in response to which one Mis Ramesh Chandra &
  Company had submitted a quotation for Rs. 1,33,84,702.80. The tender
  of Mis. Ramesh Chandra & Company was the lowest. The complainant
  one Mr. G. Subrahmanyam was the Manager and General Power of
E Attorney holder of Mis. Ramesh Chandra & Company. According to the
  prosecution, on 23rd December, 1991 the Complainant was called to the
  house of the Respondent. He was there informed that there were many
  complications in the tender and that in order to clear those complications
  a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 would have to be paid to the Respondent as bribe.
F According to the prosecution, the Complainant expressed financial disability
  in paying the amount and was told by the Respondent that the amount could
  be paid in 5 instalments. According to the prosecution, the Respondent
  told the Complainant that if the amount was not paid the file would not
  be cleared. According to the prosecution, on 30th December, 1991, the
  Complainant again met the Respondent when he was told that at least a
G sum of Rs. I0,000 had to be paid as an advance. The said amount of Rs.
  10,000 was to be paid on 31st December, 1991 in Hotel Apsara in
  Visakhapatnam. The Complainant then reported the matter to the Central
  Bureau of Investigation, who laid a trap. The Respondent was caught
  coming out of the hotel room with marked cun-ency totaling Rs. 10,000
H in a briefcase which was carried by the Respondent.
     STATE OF A.P. v. k. JEEVARATNAM [S.N. VARIAVA, J.]             235

      The Respondent was therefore prosecuted onder Sections 7 and A
13(1 )(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The
prosecution examined 14 witnesses including the Complainant and one Mr.
M. Veerabhadrarao who was examined as P.W.2. P.W.2 was an absolutely
independent witness who had acted as a Panch witness and who knew
neither the Complainant nor the Respondent. P.W.2 had no enmity with B
either party and it is not even alleged that he was trying to favour either
party.

      On the evidence before him, the Special Judge convicted the accused
and sentenced him to R.I. for two years on each count and to pay a fine
of Rs. 3,000 on each count. The Appeal filed by the Respondent has been C
allowed by the High Court by the impugned Judgment. The High Court
concludes, on the basis of evidence, that by 23rd November, 1991 the file
had already been cleared to the knowledge of the Complainant. The High
Court concludes that as the file was already cleared the question of doing
favour or not doing favour did not arise. The High Court concludes that D
it was improbable that the Respondent would have demanded Rs. 1,00,000.
The High Court concludes that the Respondent's version that the money
must have been put into his briefcase when he had gone to the toilet was
probable. The High Court concludes that the evidence of P.Ws. I and 2
does not establish that any demand was made. On this basis the High Court E
acquits the Respondent even of the offence under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act.

      At this stage, it must be mentioned that on a complaint made by the
same Complainant, in respect of another incident, another officer of F
Visakhapatnam Port Trust had also been prosecuted. In that case also the
Trial Court had found the Officer guilty but the High Court had acquitted
her. This Court, in its Judgment in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh
v. C. Uma Maheswara Rao reported in [2004] 4 SCC 399, set aside the
Judgment of the High Court and convicted the accused in that case. While
so doing, this Court noticed Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Corruption G
Act which reads as follows:

        "20.(J) Presumption where public servant accepts gratification
        other than legal remuneration.- (I) Where, in any trial of an
        offence punishable under Section 7 or Section I I or clause (a) or H
    236                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A            clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section I 3 it is proved that an
             accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept
             or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any
             gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing
             from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is
             proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or
B
             attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the
             case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section
             7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration
             which he knows to be inadequate."

C         This Court then analyzed the law on subject and held that the term
    "shall be presumed" in Section 20(1) showed that Courts had to compulsorily
    draw a presumption. It held that the only condition for drawing the
    presumption is that during trial it should be proved that the accused has
    accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. It is held that the condition
D   need not be satisfied only through direct evidence. It is held that proof
    did not mean direct proof as that would be impossible but the proof must
    be one which would induce a reasonable man to come to a particular
    conclusion. It was held that once it is proved that gratification has been
    accepted. the presumption automatically arose. This Court cited with
E   approval the observations of a three Judge Bench in the case of Raghubir
    Singh v. State of Punjab reported in [1974] 4 SCC 560 that the very fact
    that the accused was in possession of marked currency notes against an
    allegation that he demanded and received the amount is "res ipsa
    /oquitur". We are in full agreement with the observations made in that
F Judgment.
         We now set out briefly the evidence in the matter. P. W. I, i.e., the
    Complainant, has deposed about the demand made on 23rd December,
    1991 and it being repeated on 30th December, I 991 when the Respondent
    asked him to pay at least Rs. I 0,000 on 3 I st December, 199 I in a hotel
G   room in Hotel Apsara. He has deposed that he made a complaint to CBI
    and that CBI arranged the trap. The Complainant deposed that he had
    booked the room and he and P.W. 2 went into the Room no. 202. He
    deposed that on receiving a call from the reception he went and brought
    the Respondent, who came to Hotel Apsara, to Room No. 202 where P.W.
H   2 was waiting. He deposed that he introduced P.W. 2 as the Group
     STATE OF A.P. v. R. JEEVARATNAM [S.N. VARIAVA, J.]               237

Financial Manager who had come from Bombay. P.W. I deposed that the A
Respondent then asked whether he had brought the money demanded as
a bribe. He deposed that he opened a rexin bag and offered the marked
currency amounting to Rs. I 0,000 but that the Respondent asked him to
put the money into the briefcase and, therefore, he put the amount into the
briefcase. P.W. 1 deposed that thereafter the Respondent took the briefcase B
and was about to leave the room when he gave the prearranged signal and
CBI nabbed the Respondent. In cross-examination this version of P.W.
I could not be shaken at all. This evidence clearly established demand
and acceptance of money.

      This version is supported by the deposition of P.W. 2. P.W. 2 was C
at that time the Assistant Director of Post Office at Visakhapatnam. He
was asked by his superior Officer to go to the CBI Office. He did not know
the Complainant or the Respondent. He deposed that P.W. I, himself and
the CBI officers along with marked currency went to Room No. 202 in
Hotel Apsara. He deposed that a phone call was received from the D
reception and P.W. I went out and brought the Respondent into the room.
He deposed that he was introduced to the Respondent as a Group Finance
Manager of the company. He deposed that P.W. I mentioned that as agreed
earlier money had been brought for payment of the first instalmer1t and that
the rest of the amount would be paid afterwards. He deposed that P.W. E
1 asked the Respondent to clear the file. He deposed that the Respondent
thereupon assured P.W. I not to worry about the file and that he (the
Respondent) would see to it that the file is cleared within one month. P.W.
2 deposed that P. W.1 offered the money to the Respondent, but the
Respondent asked him to place the money into his briefcase. He deposed
that P. W. l therefore placed the money into the briefcase and the Respondent F
then picked up the briefcase and was going out of the room when he was
apprehended pursuant to a pre-arranged signal.

      The Respondent was thus caught red-handed with t!1e marked money
in a briefcase carried by him. The presumption under Section 20(1) thus G
arose. The High Court unfortunately overlooks this aspect.

      Faced with this situation it was submitted by Mr. Anand, on behalf
of the Respondent, that the presumption under Section 20 does not arise
in a case under Section 13( I)( d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He H
    238                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A submitted that for an offence under Section 13(1 )(d) the demand had also
    to be proved. In support of his submission he relied upon the case of
    Subash Parbat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat reported in [2002] 5 SCC 86.

           This submission overlooks the fact that the Respondent had been
B accused of an offence under Section 7 also. His explanation that the money
    must have been put into his briefcase when he had gone to the bathroom
    is unbelievable. Both P.Ws. I and 2 have denied that the Respondent went
    to the bathroom. There is no explanation worth its name as to why the
    Respondent had gone into the hotel room. Even his explanation that he
    had gone to the hotel to book a table for the night of 31st December is
C   belied by the fact that there is no evidence that any table was booked by
    the Respondent. Thus it was proved that an offence under Section 7 of
    the Prevention of Corruption Act had been committed.

          Even otherwise, in our view, the High Court was entirely wrong in
D   coming to a conclusion that there was no proof of demand. The evidence
    of P. Ws. I and 2, to the effect, that when the Respondent came into the
    room he was told that P.W.2 was the Group Finance Manager, who had
    brought Rs. 10,000 as demanded and the further evidence that the
    Respondent assured that the file would be cleared clearly establish that
E   there was a demand and receipt of the money was as a bribe. On this
    evidence which has not bt!en shaken in cross-examination, in our view, the
    offence under Section 13(1 )( d) read with Section 13(2) had also been made
    out. The High Court erred in acquitting the Respondent merely on the basis
    of conjectures and surmises.

F         In this view of the matter, we set aside the Judgment of the High Court
    and convict the Respondent under Section 7 and Section 13(1 )(d) read with
    13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In our view, the ends of justice
    would be met, by sentencing the accused under both the counts to one
    year's rigorous imprisonment. The fine and default stipulations will be as
G   stipulated by the trial Court.

          The Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. The Respondent
    is directed to surrender to serve out the remaining sentence.

    R.P.                                                       Appeal allowed.