Supreme Court Upholds Convictions for Bribery in Exemption Case

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's convictions for demanding and accepting illegal gratification from a hospital to exempt it from provident fund liabilities. The court applied the statutory presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, which the appellant failed to rebut. The evidence, including witness testimonies, supported the appellant's guilt under relevant sections. The Court affirmed the appellant's status as a public servant and his abuse of position to obtain the bribe, leading to his sentence and order to surrender for serving the same.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant, a public servant, demanded and accepted illegal gratification.
2. Whether the statutory presumption u/s 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 applies.
3. Whether the appellant's conviction u/s 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is justified.

Summary:

Issue 1: Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification
The appellant, along with other accused, was alleged to have demanded and accepted a bribe from the Hospital authorities to exempt the Hospital from its provident fund liabilities. The trial court acquitted the appellant, finding the defense's claim that the money was thrust into his pocket plausible. However, the High Court overturned this acquittal, concluding that the appellant's acceptance of the bribe was proven beyond reasonable doubt, supported by the evidence of independent witnesses P.Ws. 3 and 4, who saw the appellant accept the money.

Issue 2: Statutory Presumption u/s 4(1) of the Act
The High Court applied the statutory presumption u/s 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, which allows the court to presume that the appellant accepted the bribe unless proven otherwise. The appellant failed to rebut this presumption, leading to his conviction. The Supreme Court upheld this application, noting that the recovery of the money from the appellant and the surrounding circumstances justified the presumption.

Issue 3: Conviction u/s 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act
The Supreme Court confirmed that the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's status as a public servant, his acceptance of illegal gratification, and the abuse of his position to obtain the bribe. The Court emphasized that for an offence u/s 161 IPC, acceptance of the bribe suffices, while for Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2), the prosecution must show that the appellant obtained the bribe by abusing his position. The evidence, including the testimony of P.Ws. 2 and 9, corroborated by independent witnesses, established the appellant's guilt under both sections.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's convictions and sentences, finding no reason to interfere with the High Court's judgment. The appellant was ordered to surrender to serve out his sentence.

---