9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 2. Interpretation and application of the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Act. 3. Evaluation of the explanation provided by the appellant regarding the receipt of money. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutionality of Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947: The appellant contended that Section 4(1) of the Act, which requires a presumption to be raised against an accused person, is unconstitutional and ultra vires as it violates the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution. The court examined this claim and found it to be without merit. The court stated, "Art. 14 does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation; no doubt it forbids class legislation; but if it appears that the impugned legislation is based on a reasonable classification founded on intelligible differentia and that the said differentia have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by it, its validity cannot be successfully challenged under Art. 14." The court concluded that the classification of public servants under Section 4(1) is rational and based on intelligible differentia, aimed at eradicating corruption among public servants. Therefore, the challenge to the vires of Section 4(1) on the ground that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution must fail. 2. Interpretation and application of the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Act: The court analyzed when the statutory presumption under Section 4(1) can be raised and what its content is. The court noted that the presumption is drawn in light of Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with the acceptance of illegal gratification by public servants. The court stated, "What the prosecution has to prove before asking the court to raise a presumption against an accused person is that the accused person has received a 'gratification other than legal remuneration'; if it is shown, as in the present case it has been shown, that the accused received the stated amount and that the said amount was not legal remuneration then the condition prescribed by the section is satisfied." The court rejected the appellant's argument that the presumption could only be raised if it was shown that the money was received as a bribe, emphasizing that the word "gratification" should be given its literal dictionary meaning. 3. Evaluation of the explanation provided by the appellant regarding the receipt of money: The appellant admitted receiving Rs. 375 from Shukla but claimed it was a loan to meet the expenses of his children's clothing. The court examined the evidence provided by the appellant and found it to be improbable and untrue. The court noted that the appellant had a bank balance of Rs. 1,600 and a salary of about Rs. 600 per month, making it unlikely that he needed to borrow money for his children's clothing. The court also found it improbable that Shukla would have offered a loan to the appellant given their strained relationship. The court concluded, "Therefore, we are satisfied that the High Court was right in discarding the explanation given by the appellant as wholly unsatisfactory and unreasonable." The court held that the presumption raised against the appellant had not been rebutted and upheld the conviction and sentence. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the order of conviction and sentence against the appellant was confirmed. The court found no merit in the constitutional challenge to Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and upheld the statutory presumption raised against the appellant. The appellant's explanation for receiving the money was found to be improbable and untrue, leading to the confirmation of his conviction and sentence.
|
