Conviction Overturned: No Proof of Bribe Under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Loan Repayment Proven

The SC set aside the appellant's conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court found that the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant accepted a bribe. The evidence indicated the money was received as a loan repayment, effectively rebutting the presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Act. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant's bail bonds were discharged.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the appellant's conviction under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Examination of evidence regarding the demand and acceptance of gratification.
3. Applicability of the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. Burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption of guilt.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the appellant's conviction under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
The appellant was initially convicted by the Special Judge for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court, upon appeal, acquitted the appellant of charges under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) but upheld the conviction under Section 7, reducing the sentence to one year. The Supreme Court examined whether the evidence supported the conviction under Section 7.

2. Examination of evidence regarding the demand and acceptance of gratification:
The prosecution's case rested on the testimony of PW-10 and PW-2. PW-10, who was central to the prosecution's case, did not support the prosecution's story and was declared hostile. He stated that the appellant never demanded any bribe and that the money given to the appellant was a loan repayment from PW-2 to Accused No. 1. PW-2's evidence was considered hearsay and inadmissible as he had no personal knowledge of the demand. The official witness, PW-11, only heard the appellant asking "is it readyRs." without any mention of a bribe. Exhibit P-9, the post-trap mahazar, also did not record any demand for gratification by the appellant.

3. Applicability of the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
Section 20 of the Act presumes that any gratification accepted by a public servant is a bribe unless proven otherwise. The Supreme Court noted that this presumption is rebuttable. The appellant argued that the money was received as a loan repayment, not as a bribe. The Court emphasized that the presumption under Section 20 is not inviolable and can be rebutted through cross-examination or reliable evidence.

4. Burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption of guilt:
The Supreme Court reiterated that the burden on the accused to rebut the presumption under Section 20 is not as stringent as the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant needed to prove his case by a preponderance of probability. The Court found that the appellant successfully demonstrated that the money was received as a loan repayment, not as a bribe, thus rebutting the presumption of guilt.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant received any gratification. The evidence suggested that the money was given to the appellant under the belief that it was a loan repayment. Consequently, the appellant's conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The bail bonds executed by the appellant were discharged.

---