1962 (9) TMI 50 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal dismissed, conviction affirmed under Prevention of Corruption Act.

DHANVANTRAI BALWANTRAI Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DHANVANTRAI BALWANTRAI Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 1964 AIR 575, 1963 (1) Suppl. SCR 485 Issues Involved:1. Presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.2. Reasonableness and probability of the appellant's explanation.3. Burden of proof and its discharge by the accused.4. Assessment of evidence and credibility of witnesses.5. Appropriateness of the sentence.Issue-wise Analysis:1. Presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act:The appellant was convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, read with Section 5(2). The court had to determine whether the presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was applicable. The provision states that if it is proved that an accused person has accepted any gratification (other than legal remuneration), it shall be presumed that he accepted it as a motive or reward unless the contrary is proved. The court held that the requirements of sub-section (1) of Section 4 were fulfilled, and the presumption must be raised.2. Reasonableness and Probability of the Appellant's Explanation:The appellant argued that the presumption raised against him should be rebutted by his explanation, which he claimed was reasonable and probable. He contended that the complainant had a grievance against him due to previous professional disputes and that the complainant might have laid a trap to implicate him. The appellant's explanation was that the Rs. 1,000 received was meant to be passed on to the temple authorities and not as a bribe. However, the court noted that the appellant's explanation must be supported by proof and not merely be plausible.3. Burden of Proof and Its Discharge by the Accused:The court discussed the burden of proof resting on the accused under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court noted that the presumption under this section is a presumption of law, and it is obligatory for the court to raise this presumption once it is established that the accused received a sum of money not due as legal remuneration. The burden on the accused is not as light as under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and cannot be discharged merely by offering a probable explanation. The explanation must be proven to be true.4. Assessment of Evidence and Credibility of Witnesses:The court examined the evidence, including the complainant's testimony and the appellant's defense. The complainant alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe, while the appellant claimed the money was for temple repairs. The court found inconsistencies in the appellant's defense and noted that no evidence showed that the temple authorities had authorized the appellant to collect money. The court also considered the credibility of the complainant and other witnesses. The High Court disbelieved the appellant's explanation and found the complainant's testimony credible.5. Appropriateness of the Sentence:A plea was made to reduce the sentence considering the appellant's age and impending retirement. The Special Judge had already considered these factors and imposed a substantive sentence of one year, though the maximum for the offense is seven years. The court found no room for further reduction of the sentence and dismissed the appeal.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence. The court held that the presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was applicable and not rebutted by the appellant's explanation. The court emphasized that the burden of proof on the accused is significant and must be supported by evidence, not just a plausible explanation. The credibility of witnesses and the appropriateness of the sentence were also upheld.