2000 (12) TMI 892 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Can a legal presumption be based on a factual presumption?
2. Is direct evidence necessary to draw a presumption u/s 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
3. Was the appellant's acceptance of money considered as gratification?

Summary:

Issue 1: Can a legal presumption be based on a factual presumption?
The Supreme Court examined whether an inference drawn from other facts (factual presumption) could be used as a premise for the compulsory presumption u/s 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court concluded that legal presumption is compulsory and can be drawn from proved facts, even if those facts are established through inferences. The court emphasized that while factual presumptions are discretionary, legal presumptions are mandatory once the foundational facts are established.

Issue 2: Is direct evidence necessary to draw a presumption u/s 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
The court held that direct evidence is not the only mode to prove that an accused accepted or agreed to accept gratification. The term "proof" in the Evidence Act encompasses both direct and circumstantial evidence. The court can rely on inferences drawn from proved facts to establish the foundational facts necessary for the presumption u/s 20 of the Act. The court cited previous judgments to support this view, including Hazari Lal vs. Delhi (Delhi Administration) and Raghubir Singh vs. State of Haryana.

Issue 3: Was the appellant's acceptance of money considered as gratification?
The court agreed with the findings of the trial court and the High Court that the appellant had received gratification from PW1. The appellant's defense, including the testimony of PW1 and PW2 and the evidence of two defense witnesses, was found unreliable. The court held that once the foundational fact of acceptance of money is established, the legal presumption that it was accepted as gratification follows. The appellant's attempt to rebut this presumption was unsuccessful.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were upheld. The court reiterated that legal presumptions u/s 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, can be based on factual presumptions and do not require direct evidence. The appellant's acceptance of money was rightly presumed to be gratification.