Crl.A. 122 of 2006 1

   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 122 OF 2006

V. ANJANEYULU ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF A.P. ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The accused stands convicted for offences punishable  

under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of  

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.  The trial court  

has found on the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5 particularly,  

P.W. 2 who is a truly independent witness that the bribe  

money had been delivered to the appellant for the sanction  

of the margin money for the loan sought by the complainant  

for  the  purchase  of  a  vehicle.   This  finding  has  been  

reiterated by the High Court in appeal.  In the course of  

the hearing before us, some doubt was sought to be created  

to  the  evidence  of  P.W.  1  inasmuch  as  that  he  was  a  

habitual complainant as he had lodged a complaint in some  

other matter as well which had led to a prosecution under  

the Prevention of Corruption Act. We are of the opinion

Crl.A. 122 of 2006 2

that merely because P.W. 1 had made a complaint in some  

other case and a prosecution has been  initiated would not  

mean that the present prosecution was to be treated as a  

motivated  one.   We  also  see  that  P.W.  2  is  a  truly  

independent witness and had no connection either with the  

complainant or with the appellant as he was an employee of  

the Weights and Measures Department.  It must also be noted  

that if the tainted money is recovered from the person of  

an accused a presumption under Section 20 has to be raised  

against  him   and  it  is  for  the  accused  to  rebut  such  

presumption.  In his statement under Section 313 of the  

Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  the  appellant  had  made  a  

statement that the money had been thrust into his pocket by  

the complainant  i.e. P.W. 1 but when D.W.-1 appeared to  

support this version he had nothing to say on this aspect  

In other words, the money having been recovered from the  

pocket of the appellant a presumption under Section 20 of  

the  Prevention  of  Corruption  Act  must  be  raised.   Two  

Courts have found against the appellant.  We see no reason  

to hold otherwise.  

3. Dismissed.  

........................... J

      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

Crl.A. 122 of 2006 3

........................... J

      [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI OCTOBER 27, 2010.