TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (11) TMI 1250
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o explain that it was an amount otherwise payable to him and hence it was no gratification at all. The trial court and the High Court found that the public servant failed to prove that the amount received by him was legally due to him otherwise. The trial court convicted him under Section 5(2) of the Act of 1947, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 5000/-. Though he was convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code also the court did not award any separate sentence on that account. When he appealed to the High Court, a single judge concurred with the finding and confirmed the conviction. However, learned single judge reduced the imprisonment limb of the sentence to just one day, but enhanced the fine limb to Rs. 3000/-. 4. The public servant was not satisfied with the substantial amelioration he secured from the High Court. Perhaps he thought that the conviction itself would magnetize hazards in his service career. Hence he filed this appeal by special leave. 5. But when the special leave petition was considered we felt, prima facie, that the learned single judge reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the vanishing point without t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pe-recorder. There was some dialogue between them which go recorded on the tape-recorder. However, when other customers visited the same officer appellant indicated to PW-1 through a gesticulation about his readiness to accept the promised money then and there. It was then that PW-1 handed over the pre-arranged currency notes to the appellant. PW-1 transmitted the message through a signal to the members of the Anti Corruption Squad who were waiting outside. Those persons then rushed to the room and caught the appellant red-handed with the tainted currency notes. Later the case was charge-sheeted against him. 9. After recording the evidence relating to the said trap the Special Judge examined the appellant under Section 313 of the CrPC. Appellant filed a written statement in which he said, inter alia, that he went to the office of PW-1 on the said night as he was requested to reach there for a discussion about certain programmes of the "Sindhi Association" in which, perhaps, both were interested. While they were talking on that subject some persons reached there. Then the appellant stood up and was about to leave the place, but then PW-1 paid him some money saying that it was a g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nding provision in the PC Act of 1988 {Section 20(1)} is identical we would reproduce that sub-section herein: Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. 13. The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the presumption is that there was payment or acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise is established the inference to be drawn is that the said gratification was accepted "as motive or reward" for doing or forbearing to do any official act. So the word 'gratification' need not be stretche....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant was under suspension for 7 years and the High Court had suspended both the conviction and sentence during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court and that he was reinstated and continued as such till the date of the impugned judgment and in the meanwhile he was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer. Second is that another single judge of the Bombay High Court (Saldhana, J.) had reduced a sentence of imprisonment from two years to just one day, and increased the fine sentence from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- for a similar offence in another case. That decision has been reported as Vasant Maruti Waikar v. State of Maharashtra (1991)93BOMLR510 . The said decision was relied on as a precedent. 17. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted before us that the court has powers to impose any sentence below the minimum prescribed. He cited two decisions of this Court [Balaram Swain v. State of Orissa 1991CriLJ387 , M.O. Shamsuddin v. State of Kerala (1995)3SCC351 . In both the said decisions this Court had reduced the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the public servants in consideration of the long duration of the pendency of criminal proceedings a....