[2023] 12 S.C.R. 433 : 2023 INSC 844
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.]
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 appellantaccused no.1 had demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.1500/-
as gratification other then legal remuneration from the defactocomplainant – 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 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
* Author
434 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
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]
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.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.2173
of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.03.2011 of the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in CRLA No.54 of 2005.
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.
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 435
P. SARANGAPANI (DEAD) THR. LR PAKA SAROJA v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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
21st 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, AntiCorruption Bureau, Warangal Range, Warangal against the appellant
accused no.1 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
436 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
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 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
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 437
P. SARANGAPANI (DEAD) THR. LR PAKA SAROJA v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
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 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: -
1 (2014) 13 SCC 55
2 (2023) 4 SCC 731
438 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
“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 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.”
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 439
P. SARANGAPANI (DEAD) THR. LR PAKA SAROJA v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
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 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.
440 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
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: Ankit Gyan Result of the case : Appeal dismissed.
