2003 (11) TMI 649 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Reinstates Conviction for Corruption, Modifies Sentence to One Year, Emphasizes Deterrence Against Graft.

State of Andhra Pradesh Versus V. Vasudeva Rao

The SC set aside the HC's acquittal and upheld the trial court's conviction of the accused under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of the High Court's acquittal of the accused.2. Application and interpretation of Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.3. Evaluation of evidence and presumption of guilt.4. Appropriate sentencing for the accused.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the High Court's Acquittal of the Accused:The State of Andhra Pradesh challenged the High Court's decision to acquit the accused, who was initially convicted by the trial court for offences under Section 161 of the IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The trial court had sentenced the accused to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 on each count. The High Court, however, held that there was no material evidence to show that the accused demanded a bribe and thus acquitted him.2. Application and Interpretation of Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947:Section 4(1) of the Act presumes that a public servant who accepts gratification other than legal remuneration does so as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act. The Supreme Court emphasized that the presumption under Section 4 is a legal presumption, which means it must be presumed that the accused accepted the gratification unless proven otherwise. The Court noted that the presumption can be drawn from direct or circumstantial evidence.3. Evaluation of Evidence and Presumption of Guilt:The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence presented, including the testimony of witnesses and the circumstances of the trap laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. The Court found that the High Court erred in its evaluation by not considering the presence of phenolphthalein powder as significant evidence. The Court reiterated that mere recovery of the tainted money and the accused's failure to provide a credible explanation were sufficient to invoke the presumption under Section 4 of the Act. The Court referred to past judgments to support the principle that possession of marked currency notes against an allegation of demand and receipt of a bribe is 'res ipsa loquitur' (the thing speaks for itself).4. Appropriate Sentencing for the Accused:The Supreme Court considered the age of the accused, who was 75 years old at the time of judgment. The Court noted that while the Prevention of Corruption Act mandates a minimum sentence of one year, the special reasons provision allows for a reduction below this minimum. However, the Court emphasized the need for stringent measures to combat corruption and the deterrent effect of the prescribed punishment. The Court reduced the sentence to the minimum of one year but maintained the fine imposed by the trial court, stating that reducing the sentence below the minimum would defeat the legislative intent to deter corruption.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and upheld the trial court's conviction of the accused under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The sentence was modified to the minimum imprisonment of one year, with the fine remaining unchanged. The Court underscored the importance of stringent punishment to curb corruption and the legislative intent behind the prescribed minimum sentence.