REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1053  OF 2005

Sayyed Shabiralli Hafizali …..Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra        ...Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single  of the Bombay High  

Court, Aurangabad Bench upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under  

Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short the  

‘Act’).   The  learned  Special  Judge,  Ahmednagar,  had  found  the  accused-appellant  guilty and  

convicted  him  as  aforenoted  and  to  suffer  imprisonment  for  one  year  and  to  pay  a  fine  of  

Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.  

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The complainant Mhatardeo Dagadu Dahale, resident of Dule (Chandgaon) was running a tailoring  

shop by name 'Surekha Ladies Tailors' at Pathardi. The land bearing S.No.92/1 situated at village  

Dule (Chandgaon) was owned by complainant's father. He wanted to install electric pump set on

the well situated in the said land. For that purpose, he had made an application to the office of  

Maharashtra State Electricity Board (in short ‘M.S.E.B.’), Pathardi. However, the M.S.E.B. did not  

take any cognizance of the said application.  Complainant's  father,  therefore,  submitted another  

application in the year 1980. Thereafter survey of the land and in particular the place where the  

electric motor was to be installed was carried out and the complainant was asked to carryout the  

preliminary  requirements  and  to  submit  the  test  report.  Accordingly,  the  complainant  had  

submitted the test report on 12.11.1986. As the complainant's father was of old age, complainant  

was in fact attending all the work in connection with the agriculture operations and allied work. As  

per the Rules of the M.S.E.B., it was necessary for the complainant to deposit certain charges for  

receiving  the  material  required  for  the  installation  and  connection  of  the  electric  motor.  The  

complainant,  therefore,  deposited  Rs.610/-  in  A.D.C.C.  Bank,  Ahmednagar on 26.12.1984.  In  

spite  of such compliance on the part  of the complainant  and his father,  the M.S.E.B.  had not  

provided  the  necessary  material  and  connection.  For  getting  the  material  released  from  the  

M.S.E.B. store, it was necessary to issue gate pass. For that purpose, the complainant had met the  

accused, who was then working as Sub-Engineer in the office of M.S.E.B., Rural Sub Division,  

Pathardi and the accused had told him that he would be sending one Channe, Wireman. However,  

nobody turned up till  19.11.1986.  Hence, the complainant  contracted the accused on that  day.  

However,  even  on  that  day,  the  gate  pass  was  not  issued  in  favour  of  the  complainant.  On  

26.11.1986, the accused went to the shop of the complainant and told him that he would issue the  

gate pass,  but for that purpose, the complainant will  have to pay Rs.100/- to the accused. The  

complainant told him that he had not that much amount to pay at that time and that he would  

collect the amount and give him within a short period. Thereafter on 02.12.1986, the complainant  

went to the house of the accused at about 9.00 to 9.30 p.m., at that time also, the accused told him  

that on the next day, while going to his house for meals from the office, he would hand over the  

gate pass to him and that he should pay him Rs.100/- at that time. The complainant thereafter went  

to the office of Anti Corruption Bureau at Ahmednagar and narrated the entire incident to Mr.  

Joshi,  Deputy Superintendent  of  Anti  Corruption  Bureau  and  lodged  a  complaint  wherein  he

specifically stated that the accused demanded bribe of Rs.100/- for issuing gate pass in favour of  

the complainant and that he would come to his shop the next day in the afternoon to collect the  

amount and to hand over the gate pass. The complainant was, therefore, asked to come to the Anti  

Corruption Bureau on the next day. Accordingly, the complainant went to the said office on the  

next day. At that time, the police called two panchas by names Vavhal and Godbole. The search of  

the complainant was taken in the presence of panchas and at that time, complainant handed over an  

amount of Rs.100/- to which police applied anthracene powder and gave necessary instructions to  

the complainant as well as to the panchas. Except that amount of Rs.100/- and another sum of  

Rs.18/-,  nothing  was  kept  on  the  person  of  the  complainant.  Then  the  police,  panchas  and  

complainant proceeded in a Jeep to  Pathardi. They halted the Jeep at a distance of about 1 km.  

from the complainant's shop and then pancha witness Vavhal and complainant went to his shop.  

They waited there till about 3/3.30 p.m. However, the accused did not turn up. They, therefore,  

informed this  fact  to  Deputy Superintendent  of  Anti  Corruption  Bureau,  Mr.  Joshi.  With  his  

permission, the complainant and the pancha witness Vavhal then went to the office of M.S.E.B.,  

Pathardi to find out as to whether the accused was there. However, the accused was not found there  

but they were informed that accused would be coming within 15/20 minutes. Hence, both of them  

sat on the 'Ota', which was in front of the said office. At about 5.30 p.m., complainant's father went  

to that place and informed the complainant that Sayyedsaheb i.e. the accused has come to his shop.  

The complainant and pancha witness Vivhal therefore went to the shop of the complainant. The  

accused  was  sitting  in  the  complainant’s  shop.  After  reaching  there,  complainant  asked  the  

accused, whether he has done his work. The accused answered in the affirmative and asked the  

complainant as to what about him. On that, the complainant answered in the affirmative. Then the  

accused took out a folded chit, which is proved to be the gate pass, (Exhibit-21) and handed over  

the  same  to  the  complainant.  Complainant  took  out  the  marked  currency note  of  Rs.50,  two  

currency notes of Rs.20/- and one currency note of Rs.10, in all  Rs.100/- to which anthracene  

powder was applied, and gave them to the accused. The accused put the said amount in the pocket  

of his Manila. The complainant put Ext.21 in the pocket of the Manila in which initially he had

kept the marked currency notes. The complainant then immediately went out of the shop and gave  

signal. Thereupon the police constables and Deputy Superintendent Mr. Joshi entered the shop.  

The police Constables held the hands of the accused and Deputy Superintendent Mr. Joshi asked  

the accused as to where the bribe amount was. Thereupon, the accused handed over the amount of  

Rs.100/- put by him in his pocket. Police then carried out the post-trap panchanama in which it was  

noted that the numbers of the marked currency notes mentioned in the pre-trap panchanama and  

post-trap panchanama were the same. Besides this, anthracene powder was noticed at the fingertips  

of the accused so also at some portion of the Manila of the accused. The police also attached the  

gate pass, Exhibit-21.  The copy of the panchanama was handed over to the accused and accused  

signed  the  same  for  having  received  the  copy.  Thereafter,  Mr.  Joshi,  Deputy Superintendent  

recorded the statements of complainant and some other witnesses and after obtaining necessary  

sanction for prosecution and on completing the investigation submitted charge sheet against the  

accused in the Court of Special Judge, Ahmednagar.  

As the accused pleaded innocence, trial was held.  Four witnesses were examined including the  

complainant,  panch  witness,  Assistant  Engineer  and  Deputy  Superintendent  of  Police,  Anti  

Corruption Bureau.  The accused examined his wife as a defence witness.  His stand was that his  

wife had given clothes for stitching to the complainant and he had gone to his shop to collect the  

money for  the  lost  cloth.  After  considering  the  evidence,  the  trial  Court  concluded  that  the  

prosecution has fully established the demand of bribe.  An appeal was preferred before the Bombay  

High Court.  

Stand of the accused before the High Court was that since money was not given by the complainant  

to the accused in the office but at the shop of the complainant, it proves that the defence version is  

correct.  The High Court noted that admittedly the complainant was running a tailoring shop and  

complainant’s father had submitted an application for getting electricity connection. The necessary  

test report was filed on 12.11.1986 and the necessary charges had been deposited on 26.12.1984

but the necessary gate pass was not given.  The complainant’s version that as regards demand of  

bribe was not shaken or shattered in cross examination the same was fully corroborated by the  

complaint filed on 2.12.1986. The evidence of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption  

Bureau  fully established  the  same  as  the  High  Court  noted  that  the  sanction  order,  pre  trap  

panchnama of  the    place of offence and gate passé were produced.  

Referring to Section 4 of the Act the High Court held that the prosecution version was established  

and, therefore, there was no merit in the appeal.  

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the defence version was more probable.  

This is a case where the  complainant had not gone to the office  of the accused to hand over the  

money but the accused  had gone at the shop of the complainant, this itself creates a doubt about  

the version of the prosecution.  

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the judgment.  

5. It  is  of  significance  that  in  the  complaint  dated  2.12.1986  the  complainant  had  

specifically stated that the accused shall be coming for handing over the gate pass and for taking  

the money  i.e. bribe  amount  on 3.12.1986 in the afternoon. Therefore,  as rightly noted by the  

High Court if really the complainant had issued any receipt or chit in respect of the cloth  and had  

told the accused to bring that chit or receipt, it is only after obtaining the said chit  he would pay  

amount of Rs.100/-. Then he would  not have lodged the complaint  because at that time  he had no  

idea  as to what to do in the situation on 3.12.1986. Admittedly, when the post trap panchnama was  

drawn the accused was present  there.  So also the panch witness Sayajirao was present.   After  

drawing the  panchnama a copy of the same was immediately  given to the accused. Not only that,  

he made endorsement on the original panchnama  for having received a copy. If really the accused  

had handed over the receipt of the cloth  to the complainant and accepted Rs.100/- as  a price of the

lost cloth, he would have told panchas as well as to the police that  that the receipt has been handed  

over  to him  and the said fact be mentioned in the panchanama but this has not happened.   There  

was no mention about the accused having stated to have brought the chit of the cloth.  

6. Section 4 of the Act reads as follows:

“Section 4. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration –

(1) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 161 or section 165 of the  Indian Penal Code, or of an offence referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-sec. (1) of S.5 of  this Act, punishable under sub-section (2) thereof, 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 the said section 161, or, as the case may be, without consideration  or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.

(2) Where in any trail of an offence punishable under Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code or  under clause (ii) sub-section (3) of Section 5 of this Act, it is proved that any gratification or any  valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be  given by an.  accused  person,  it  shall  be  presumed unless  the  contrary is  proved that  he gave  or  offered  to  give or  attempted to give that  gratification or that  valuable thing, as the case may be,  as a motive or  reward, such as is mentioned in Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code or, as the case may be,  without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to  be inadequate.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) and (2), the  Court may decline to draw  the presumption referred to in either of the said sub-section,  if the gratification or thing, aforesaid  is, in its opinion, so trivial that no inference or corruption may fairly be drawn.”

7. In  State  of  Assam v.  Krishna Rao and Ors.  (AIR 1973 SC 28)  it  was observed as  

follows:

“Where it is proved that a gratification has been accepted the presumption under Section 4 of the  Prevention of Corruption Act shall at once arise, it is a presumption of law and it is obligatory on  the Court to raise it  in every case brought under Section 4. The words, “unless the contrary is  proved” mean that the presumption raised by Section 4 has to be rebutted by proof and not by bare  explanation which may be merely plausible. The required proof need not be such as is expected for  sustaining a criminal conviction, it needs only to establish  a high degree of probability.” 8. The evidence on record has clearly established the accusations and the trial Court and  

the High Court have rightly relied on the same.  

9. In the instant case the occurrence took place on December 2, 1986. At that point of time

it cannot be said that the gratification was a trivial thing as referred to under Section 4.  

10. Above  being  the  position,  there  is  no  merit  in  this  appeal  which  is  accordingly  

dismissed.  

……………………………….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

………………………………… J.

(HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

……………………………….J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, May 04, 2009