1966 (3) TMI 98 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. Presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. Burden of proof on the accused under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
4. Credibility of witnesses and evidence.
5. Admissibility of statements under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
6. Sentencing considerations.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act:
The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lucknow, for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 10,000 and a Than of long cloth to prevent the cancellation of a cloth dealer's license. The conviction was upheld by the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench. The appellant's defense was that he had been falsely implicated due to a prior prosecution of one Bhola Nath under the Essential Supplies Act. The courts found the prosecution's evidence sufficient to establish the charges against the appellant.

2. Presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act:
The court examined whether a presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act arises when it is proved that an accused person has accepted any gratification other than legal remuneration. The court referred to previous judgments, stating that the mere receipt of money is sufficient to raise a presumption under this section. The requirements of Section 4(1) were fulfilled, and the presumption had to be raised.

3. Burden of proof on the accused under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act:
The court clarified that the burden on the accused is to prove his case by a preponderance of probability, not beyond a reasonable doubt. This is akin to the burden in civil proceedings. The accused must establish his plea by showing a probability in his favor, after which the burden shifts back to the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

4. Credibility of witnesses and evidence:
The appellant argued that the circumstances did not establish that the Rs. 10,000 was accepted as illegal gratification and not as a loan. The High Court found that Ram Lal Kapoor was unlikely to lend such a sum without a formal document, and the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claim of a loan. The court also noted that the appellant's statement about the receipt was highly belated and lacked credibility. The High Court's assessment of witness credibility and the rejection of the appellant's defense were upheld.

5. Admissibility of statements under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The appellant contended that certain statements made to the District Magistrate should be excluded under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court did not find it necessary to express a concluded opinion on their admissibility, noting that even without these statements, there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.

6. Sentencing considerations:
The appellant, aged 66, argued for a reduction in sentence due to the prolonged legal proceedings over 15 years. The court found the sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000, with an additional one-year imprisonment in default of payment, to be appropriate and not excessive.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, with the court affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts. The court found no merit in the appellant's arguments and upheld the findings regarding the receipt of illegal gratification, the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the credibility of the prosecution's evidence.