THE STATE OF KARNATAKAversusCHANDRASHA

                [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1472 : 2024 INSC 928

                         The State of Karnataka
                                   v.
                              Chandrasha
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 2646 of 2024)
                             26 November 2024
                 [Sanjiv Khanna, CJI, Sanjay Kumar
                      and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Issue as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High
       Court setting aside the conviction of the respondent-government
       servant u/ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) of the Prevention of
       Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding of illegal gratification and its
       subsequent acceptance.

                                  Headnotes†
       Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and
       20 – Illegal gratification – Presumption u/s. 20, if attracted –
       Prosecution case of demand and acceptance of bribe amount
       by the respondent-government servant from the complainant
       for encashment of the bill of Surrender leave salary pertaining
       to the complainant and three others of his school and
       recovery of the same from the possession of the respondent –
       Conviction of the respondent u/ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) –
       However, order of acquittal by the High Court – Correctness:
       Held: Prosecution initiated the proceedings against the respondent,
       after obtaining the sanction order from the competent authority – It
       can be safely infered that the respondent had received or accepted
       the currency notes on his own volition and the testimony of the
       prosecution witnesses including the testimony of the investigating
       officer would go to show the demand, acceptance and recovery of
       the bribe amount from the possession of the respondent and the
       prosecution proved the charges framed against the respondent
       beyond reasonable doubt – Said operation was preceded by recording
       of the demand in the tape recorder – In such circumstances, the
       respondent had to rebut the presumption by disproving the case of
       the prosecution either in the cross-examination of the prosecution
       side witnesses or by adducing material evidence that the receipt

* Author
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                               1473

                     The State of Karnataka v. Chandrasha


     of Rs.2,000/- was not a bribe amount, but a legal fee or repayment
     of loan – However, he failed to do so and on the contrary, the
     prosecution proved the case beyond any doubt – Furthermore, first
     two limbs under sub sections (1) and (2) of s.13 make it clear that
     adequacy of consideration is irrelevant to draw the presumption –
     That apart, sub-section (3) only grants a discretion to Court to
     decline from drawing any presumption if the amount is so trivial so
     that such inference of corruption is not fairly possible in the facts of
     the case – Thus, not a rule but an exception available to the Court
     to exercise its discretionary power in the facts and circumstances
     of the case – On facts, no inclination to exercise such discretion –
     Judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court is illegal, erroneous
     and contrary to the materials on record – Recovery of bribe amount
     from the respondent having been proved, explanation offered by
     the respondent in the absence of any concrete material, cannot be
     accepted – ‘Demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of the bribe amount having
     been established beyond doubt, no two views possible, thus the
     approach adopted by the High Court is perverse – Order passed
     by the High Court set aside and that of the trial court restored.
     [Paras 16, 19, 21-25]

     Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.20 – Presumption u/s.20,
     when attracted – Relevance of adequacy of consideration to
     draw the presumption:
     Held: Reference to sub section (3) to s. 20 regarding the triviality
     of the gratification, the act sought or performed, and the amount
     demanded cannot be considered in isolation to each other – Value
     of gratification is to be considered in proportion to the act to be
     done or not done, to forbear or to not forebear, favour or disfavour
     sought, so as to be trivial to convince the Court, not to draw any
     presumption of corrupt practice – It is also not necessary that
     only if substantial amount is demanded, the presumption can be
     drawn – Overall circumstances and the evidence will also have to
     be looked into – s.20 would come into operation only when there is
     no nexus between the demand and the action performed or sought
     to be performed – But, when the fact of receipt of payment or an
     agreement to receive the gratification stands proved, there is a
     clear case of nexus or corroboration and the presumption itself is
     irrelevant – s.20 gets attracted when it is proved that the public
     servant has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification other
     than legal remuneration and, in that case, presumption is that it
     is the motive or reward for any of the acts covered u/ss.7, 11 or
     13(1)(b) of the Act. [Para 23]
1474                                                         [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


    Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7, s.13(1)(d) – Offence
    relating to public servant being bribed – Criminal misconduct
    by a public servant – Essential ingredients of ss.7 and
    13(1)(d) – Elucidated. [Para 13]
    Criminal Law – Appeal against acquittal – General Principles:
    Held: In an appeal against acquittal, if two views are possible and
    the court below has acquitted the accused, the appellate Court
    would not be justified in setting aside the acquittal merely because
    the other view is also possible. [Para 24]

                             Case Law Cited
    Krishna Ram v. State of Rajasthan [2009] 4 SCR 457 : 2009 (2)
    Crimes 337; A.Subair v. State of Kerala [2009] 9 SCR 1058 :
    (2009) 6 SCC 587; C.M.Girish Babu v. CBI [2009] 2 SCR 1021 :
    (2009) 3 SCC 779 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1; B.Jayaraj v. State of
    A.P [2014] 4 SCR 554 : (2014) 13 SCC 55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri)
    543; Neeraj Dutta v. State [2023] 2 SCR 997 : (2023) 4 SCC 731 :
    2022 SCC OnLine SC 1724 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
    Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Prevention of Corruption
    (Amendment) Act, 2018; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; General
    Clauses Act.

                             List of Keywords
    Illegal gratification; Presumption; Demand and acceptance of bribe
    amount; Government servant; Sanction; Encashment of bill of
    Surrender leave salary; Procedural illegality in grant of sanction;
    Demand and acceptance of gratification; Preponderance of probability;
    Prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt; Recovery
    of tainted currency notes; Legal fee or repayment of loan; Public
    servant accepted or agreed to accept any gratification other than
    legal remuneration; Inference of corruption; Appeal against acquittal.

                            Case Arising From
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2646
    of 2024
    From the Judgment and Order dated 16.02.2022 of the High Court
    of Karnataka at Kalaburagi in CRA No. 200105 of 2015
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                                 1475

                            The State of Karnataka v. Chandrasha


                                     Appearances for Parties
       D. L. Chidananda, Adv. for the Appellant.
       Basavaprabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv., Anirudh Sanganeria, Jyotirmoy
       Chatterjee, Advs. for the Respondent.

                        Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                                Judgment

       R. Mahadevan, J.

1.     At the outset, it would be apposite to point out the observation of
       this Court in Swatantar Singh v. State of Haryana1 (SCC p. 17, para
       6), which reads as under:
               “6….. Corruption is corroding, like cancerous lymph nodes,
               the vital veins of the body politic, social fabric of efficiency
               in the public service and demoralizing the honest officers.
               The efficiency in public service would improve only when
               the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does
               the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself
               assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post.
               The reputation of being corrupt would gather thick and
               unchaseable clouds around the conduct of the officer and
               gain notoriety much faster than the smoke.”
2.     This is an appeal filed by the State against the final Judgment and
       Order dated 16.02.2022 passed by the High Court of Karnataka,
       Kalaburagi Bench2 in Criminal Appeal No. 200105 of 2015.
3.     By the impugned Judgment, the High Court set aside the order of
       conviction dated 13.10.2015 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge,
       Kalaburagi3 in Special Case No. 586 of 2010 and thereby acquitted
       the respondent herein from the charges punishable under Sections
       7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
       Act, 1988.4


1    (1997) 4 SCC 14 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 909
2    Hereinafter shortly referred to as “the High Court”
3    Hereinafter shortly referred to as “the trial Court”
4    For short, “the Act”
1476                                                       [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


4.   The case of the prosecution as culled out from the records is as
     follows:
     One Subhashchandra S. Alur (P.W.1), who was working as Second
     Division Assistant in Shri Mahanteshwar High School situated at
     Mahantapura Chinamagera Village, Afzalpur Taluk, Kalaburagi District,
     made a complaint (Ex.P1) on 05.08.2009, alleging that after preparing
     a bill for encashment of surrender leave salary payable to himself
     and three non-teaching staff of his school, he submitted the bill to the
     Sub Treasury Office, Afzalpur on 29.07.2009, as per the instructions
     of the Block Education Officer, Afzalpur. On examination of the same,
     the respondent, who was working as First Division Assistant in the
     said office of the Sub Treasury, directed the complainant (P.W.1) to
     take back the bill as it cannot be passed. When the complainant
     made request for passing the same, the respondent demanded illegal
     gratification of Rs.500/- each (in total, Rs.2,000/-). On enquiry, he
     came to know that the respondent was in the habit of passing the
     bills only after receiving the bribe amount. Since the complainant
     was not inclined to pay the demanded amount, he went to the
     office of Lokayukta, Gulbarga, Karnataka, on 30.07.2009, wherein,
     a tape recorder was handed over to him to record the conversation
     of the respondent in the Sub Treasury Office. Accordingly, the
     complainant went to the office of the Sub Treasury and enquired with
     the respondent, who demanded the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- and
     told him that only after payment of the same, the bill will be passed,
     and cheque will be issued. The said conversation was recorded in
     the tape recorder and was handed over by the complainant to the
     Lokayukta Police on 05.08.2009 with a request to take action against
     the respondent. After receipt of the complaint, the Lokayukta Police
     registered a case in Crime No.13 of 2009 for the offence under
     Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act.
5.   Based on the complaint lodged by the complainant, trap was laid on
     05.08.2009, in which, the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- was recovered
     from the possession of the respondent. Upon conducting a thorough
     investigation, the Lokayukta Police filed a charge sheet, which was
     taken on file as Special Case No.586 of 2010 and thereafter, charges
     were framed against the respondent for the offences punishable
     under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act. The
     respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                      1477

                     The State of Karnataka v. Chandrasha


6.   To substantiate the charges framed against the respondent, the
     prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 witnesses and marked Exs.
     P1 to P30 documents, besides M.O.1 to M.O.10 material objects.
     However, no oral and documentary evidence were let in, on the side
     of the respondent.
7.   After hearing both sides and upon examining the materials available
     on record, the trial Court by judgment dated 13.10.2015, found
     the respondent guilty of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)
     (d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act and convicted him and sentenced
     him to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to
     pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default to undergo further period of
     two months’ imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 of the
     Act, and to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and
     to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo further period of
     six months imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(1)(d)
     r/w Section 13(2) of the Act. Both the sentences were ordered to
     run concurrently.
8.   Challenging the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence
     passed by the trial Court, the respondent preferred an appeal in
     Crl.A.No.200105 of 2015, which was allowed, and the respondent
     was acquitted from the charges by the High Court, by judgment
     dated 16.02.2022. Feeling aggrieved and being dissatisfied with the
     same, the State has preferred the instant appeal.
9.   Assailing the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the
     learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:
     9.1. As per the evidence of the complainant (P.W.1), the respondent
          initially refused to pass the bill, and he asked the complainant to
          take back the same; however, at the request of the complainant,
          the respondent agreed to get the bill passed by influencing his
          higher officials and demanded illegal gratification for the same.
     9.2. According to the respondent, he passed the bill relating to the
          complainant and others on 29.07.2009 and the cheque was
          prepared by the Treasury Office on 30.07.2009 and hence,
          no work was pending with him as on the date of trap i.e.,
          on 05.08.2009. However, the cheque was not issued to the
          complainant nor any intimation in this regard, was given to the
          school authorities.
1478                                                         [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


     9.3. The case of the prosecution was that the respondent demanded
          illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- for showing official favour in the
          matter of getting the bill sanctioned that was due to be paid to
          the complainant and others by influencing his higher officials.
          Even if the respondent has no pending work with him, and he
          demands and accepts any gratification, the essential ingredients
          for the offence under Section 7 of the Act get attracted.
     9.4. After obtaining necessary sanction (Ex.P25) from the Director
          of Treasury, Bangalore, (P.W.11) who is the competent authority
          as well as disciplinary authority at the relevant point of time,
          the prosecution was launched against the respondent for the
          charges framed against him and hence, there was no infirmity
          or illegality in initiating the prosecution against the respondent.
     9.5. P.W.1 to P.W.3 along with P.W.4 and P.W.5 coupled with
          Investigating Officers (P.W.10 and P.W.12) consistently deposed
          about the drawing of seizure mahazar (Ex.P11) and their
          evidence also supported the case of the prosecution in entirety
          qua demand and acceptance of bribe amount and recovery
          of the same from the respondent. Therefore, the presumption
          under Section 20 (1) of the Act must be raised in favour of the
          prosecution.
     9.6. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Krishna Ram
          v. State of Rajasthan,5 it is submitted that once it is proved that
          money was recovered from the possession of the respondent,
          the burden of rebutting the presumption contemplated under
          section 20(1) of the Act shifts upon the respondent, but he failed
          to do the same in the cross-examination of the prosecution
          witnesses.
     9.7. Though the respondent has taken a plea that there were loan
          transactions between himself and the complainant (PW1) and 8
          to 10 days prior to the date of trap, P.W.1 had borrowed a sum
          of Rs.2,000/- from the respondent and when the respondent
          pressurised PW1 to return back the said amount, the present
          case was falsely registered against him, no reliable and
          convincing evidence was adduced in support of the same.


5   [2009] 4 SCR 457 : 2009 (2) Crimes 337
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                     1479

                     The State of Karnataka v. Chandrasha


     9.8. Thus, the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt
          that the respondent being Government servant while working
          as First Division Assistant in the office of the Sub-Treasury
          Office at Afzalpur, demanded Rs.2,000/- from PW1 as illegal
          gratification for the bill to be passed by influencing his higher
          officials and on 05.08.2009, the respondent, while accepting
          the bribe of Rs.2,000/- was trapped by the Lokayukta police
          and thereby committed the offences punishable under Section
          7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act.
     9.9. Considering all these aspects, the trial Court rightly convicted
          the respondent for the offences as stated above and punished
          him for the same. However, the High Court erred in passing
          the judgment of acquittal against the respondent, which has to
          be set aside in this appeal.
10. Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the respondent submitted
    that the respondent passed the bill on 29.07.2009 and the cheque
    was made ready on 30.07.2009 and no work was pending with him
    as on 05.08.2009 and hence, he did not demand any bribe amount
    from the complainant as alleged by the prosecution. Taking note of
    the same and also after analysing the oral and documentary evidence
    let in by the parties, the High Court rightly allowed the appeal filed
    by the respondent and set aside the judgment of conviction passed
    by the trial Court and hence, the same need not be interfered with
    by this court.
11. We have considered the submissions made by the parties and
    perused the materials available on record carefully and meticulously.
12. In the instant case, the respondent was charged under Sections 7 and
    13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act, for demand and acceptance of
    bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant (P.W.1) for passing
    the bill of encashment of Earned Leave Surrender for Rs.43,323/-
    pertaining to the complainant and three non-teaching staff of his
    school. Though the trial Court found him guilty of the aforesaid
    offences and sentenced him for the same, the High Court reversed
    the said findings and acquitted the respondent from the charges
    framed against him. Thus, this appeal is against the judgment of
    acquittal of the respondent.
13. Section 7 of the Act deals with public servants accepting or attempting
    to accept illegal gratification other than their legal remuneration. Its
1480                                                               [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                            Digital Supreme Court Reports


     essential ingredients are (i)that the person accepting the gratification
     should be a public servant; and (ii)that he should accept the
     gratification for himself, and the gratification should be as a motive
     or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing
     or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official function, favour
     or disfavour to any person.6 Insofar as Section 13(1)(d) of the Act,
     it was amended by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act,
     2018, with effect from 26th July, 2018. However, in view of Section 6
     of the General Clauses Act, Section 13(1)(d) prior to the amendment,
     is applicable to the facts of the present case, as the offence was
     stated to have been committed on 05.08.2009. Thus, its essential
     ingredients are (i)that he should have been a public servant; (ii)that
     he should have used corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abused
     his position as such public servant, and (iii)that he should have
     obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or for
     any other person.
14. The law is well settled. In C.M.Girish Babu v. CBI7 and in B.Jayaraj
    v. State of A.P.,8 while considering the case under Sections 7, 13(1)
    (d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it is reiterated
    that it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused
    voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe; absence of proof
    of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery
    of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence; and the
    presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only after
    demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved.
15. Pertinently, it is also to be noted that the Constitutional Bench in
    Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)9 has answered the issue
    ‘whether in the absence of evidence of the complainant/direct or
    primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification, it is permissible
    to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant
    under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) based on
    other evidence adduced by the prosecution’ in affirmative, with the
    following conclusions:



6   A.Subair v. State of Kerala (2009) 6 SCC 587
7   [2009] 2 SCR 1021 : (2009) 3 SCC 779 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1
8   [2014] 4 SCR 554 : (2014) 13 SCC 55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543
9   [2023] 2 SCR 997 : (2023) 4 SCC 731 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1724
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                             1481

                     The State of Karnataka v. Chandrasha


          “88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is
          summarised as under:
          88.1.(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
          gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the
          prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the
          guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and
          13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
          88.2.(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused,
          the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal
          gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter
          of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct
          evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or
          documentary evidence.
          88.3.(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of
          demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also
          be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of
          direct oral and documentary evidence.
          88.4.(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the
          demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public
          servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
          (i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without
          there being any demand from the public servant and the
          latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal
          gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of
          the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand
          by the public servant.
          (ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand
          and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the
          demanded gratification which in turn is received by the
          public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case
          of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification
          emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under
          Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
          (iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe
          giver and the demand by the public servant respectively
          have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue.
          In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal
1482                                                    [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                  Digital Supreme Court Reports


        gratification without anything more would not make it
        an offence under Section 7 or Section 13(1)(d), (i) and
        (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of
        the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must
        be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is
        accepted by the public servant which would make it an
        offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant
        when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a
        payment made which is received by the public servant,
        would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13(1)
        (d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
        88.5.(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand
        and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification
        may be made by a court of law by way of an inference
        only when the foundational facts have been proved by
        relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the
        absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record,
        the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact
        while considering whether the fact of demand has been
        proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption
        of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the
        absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
        88.6.(f) In the event the complainant turns ‘hostile’, or has
        died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial,
        demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in
        the evidence of any other witness who can again let in
        evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the
        prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence.
        The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of
        acquittal of the accused public servant.
        88.7.(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on
        the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the
        court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification
        was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned
        in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised
        by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in
        law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to
        rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13(1)(d) (i)
        and (ii) of the Act.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                       1483

                     The State of Karnataka v. Chandrasha


          88.8.(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under
          Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact
          referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory
          presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.”
16. Concededly, the respondent herein is a government servant. As
    per Section 19 of the Act, to proceed against any public servant of
    Central Government or State Government, necessary sanction should
    be obtained for a Court to take cognizance of an offence punishable
    under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Act. In this case, the
    prosecution obtained necessary sanction (Ex.P25) from P.W.11, who
    is the disciplinary authority as well as the competent authority. The
    sanction order (Ex.P25) clearly states that the Director of Treasury,
    Bangalore, (P.W.11) after perusal of the documents forwarded by the
    Lokayukta police, such as, complaint, FIR, entrustment panchanama,
    seizure panchanama, report from F.S.L, sketch of the scene of
    occurrence along with the relevant documents pertaining to the case
    including the statements of witnesses and also the statement of the
    respondent, accorded sanction to initiate prosecution against the
    respondent. Therefore, we do not find any procedural irregularity in
    grant of sanction. It was also deposed by the sanctioning authority
    (P.W.11) that after going through all these documents which were
    made available to him by the Lokayukta Police and after satisfying
    himself that there was a prima facie case to initiate the prosecution
    against the respondent and after having arrived at such satisfaction,
    he accorded sanction (Ex.P.25). Thus, it is clear that the prosecution
    initiated the proceedings against the respondent, after obtaining the
    sanction order from the competent authority.
17. Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal principles, let us examine the
    depositions of the prosecution witnesses to prove the charges
    framed against the respondent. P.W.1 is the complainant, who lodged
    complaint (Ex.P1) against the respondent, based on which the
    prosecution was set in motion. He deposed in his evidence that after
    getting instructions from the Block Education Officer, he presented a
    bill for Rs.43,323/- towards encashment of surrender leave salary of
    himself and three non-teaching staff of the school, on 29.07.2009 to
    the Sub Treasury Office, Afzalpur and requested the respondent to
    pass the same; on verifying the said bill, the respondent instructed
    the complainant to take back the same and it cannot be approved;
    however, the complainant requested him to pass the bill, for which,
1484                                                    [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                   Digital Supreme Court Reports


    the respondent demanded a bribe of Rs.2,000/- for influencing his
    higher officers; since the complainant did not accede to the demand
    made by the respondent, on 30.07.2009, he went to the office
    of Lokayukta and informed the same; the officials of Lokayukta
    handed over a tape recorder for recording the conversation with
    the respondent; on 31.07.2009, the complainant went to the Sub
    Treasury Office and enquired with the respondent for passing the
    bill, who demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/-; and the said
    conversation was recorded in the tape recorder and was handed over
    to the Lokayukta police along with complaint (Ex.P1) on 05.08.2009;
    and Ex.P.l (a) is his signature.
    17.1.   The complainant further stated in his evidence that on
            05.08.2009, the Lokayukta Inspector summoned PW2
            and PW3 as panchnama witnesses and introduced the
            complainant, who informed them about the illegal gratification
            made by the respondent and thereafter, conversation recorded
            in the tape recorder was heard by them, which was reduced
            in writing (Ex. P21); subsequently, the complainant produced
            four currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination; the Lokayukta
            police smeared phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes
            and handed over the same to Ishappa (PW3), who counted
            the notes, kept the same in the left side pant pocket of the
            complainant, then, both hands of P.W.3 were dipped into
            sodium carbonate solution, which turned into pink colour and
            the solution was collected in a bottle (M.O.1) and thereafter,
            entrustment mahazar (Ex.P2) was prepared and Exs.P3 to
            P10 photographs were also taken.
    17.2.   The evidence of P.W.1 also proceeds to state that the
            complainant along with PW.2 and P.W.3. and Lokayukta
            Inspector and his staff started to go to the Sub Treasury
            Office in a jeep and they parked their jeep in the bus stand;
            then, the complainant and shadow witness (P.W.2) went
            inside the office of the respondent; the complainant met the
            respondent and enquired about the passing of the bill; at that
            time, the respondent demanded the bribe amount and also
            took the complainant to a hotel, in which, the complainant
            handed over the amount; after counting the currency notes,
            the respondent kept the same in his left side pant pocket;
            and on giving signal, the Lokayukta police came to treasury
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                     1485

                     The State of Karnataka v. Chandrasha


             office, caught hold of the respondent, after following due
             procedure, seized the tainted currency notes from the left
             side pant pocket of the respondent and thereafter, prepared
             seizure mahazar (Ex.P11), besides collecting the material
             objects (M.O.2 to M.O.7); and the photographs taken during
             such seizure, were marked as Exs.P12 to P17.
     17.3.   The deposition of P.W.1 was corroborated by P.W.2 and
             P.W.3 panch witnesses. The shadow witness Basawaraj
             (P.W.2) who accompanied the complainant at the time of
             trap, categorically stated in his evidence about the drawing of
             seizure mahazar (Ex.P11), more particularly, the recovery of
             tainted currency notes from the possession of the respondent
             and the pant worn by the respondent at the time of trap. The
             trap witness Ishappa (P.W.3) also stated about the same in
             his evidence. Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 clearly
             demonstrated the successful completion of trap, the demand
             and acceptance of illegal gratification by the respondent for
             passing the bill pertaining to the complainant and others.
     17.4.   P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the officials working in the office of
             the Sub Treasury of Afzalpur, who produced the records
             connected with this case, as directed by the Investigating
             Officer. PW.4 - Basawaraj deposed in his evidence that on the
             date of alleged trap, himself and the respondent were working
             in the Sub Treasury Office of Afzalpur. Through him, the copy
             of the work allotment order was placed on record as Ex.P.29,
             which states that the respondent was working as First Division
             Assistant, who was looking after the section of passing the
             bills for encashment of surrender leave salary, which were
             liable to be submitted to his higher officials for approval.
             The evidence of PW.4 coupled with Ex.P29 makes it clear
             that the respondent was entrusted with the work of receiving
             and checking the surrender leave salary bill presented by
             the complainant. Further, P.W.4 in his chief examination,
             categorically stated that the money was recovered from
             the respondent; and in the cross-examination stated that
             the bills prepared in the school were produced to treasury
             through staff and he did not know that the respondent has no
             pending work relating to the complainant as on 05.08.2009.
             The certified copies of Attendance register, Token receipt,
1486                                                     [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


            Cheque and Bill passing register were marked through him,
            as Exs.P18 to P20 and P23.
    17.5.   P.W.5 – Shankreppa, who is the Chief Accounts Officer of
            STO, Afzalpur, deposed in his evidence that on 05.08.2009 at
            about 02.15 p.m., two persons came and took the respondent
            out of their office; thereafter, nearly 6 to 7 persons came
            along with the respondent, made him to sit in his seat; two
            persons were holding his hands, among them one person
            introduced himself as the Police Inspector of Lokayukta
            and informed that they have trapped the respondent, while
            he was receiving the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- from the
            complainant; both hands of the respondent were dipped in
            sodium carbonate solution and the same turned into light
            pink colour; the respondent handed over the amount from
            his pant pocket to the Police; the pant of the respondent was
            also dipped in sodium carbonate solution, which turned into
            light pink colour; and the solution was collected in a separate
            bottles and was sealed. Thus, P.W.4 and P.W.5 consistently
            deposed in respect of trap laid by the Lokayukta Police on
            the respondent and seizure of tainted currency notes from
            the possession of the respondent.
    17.6.   P.W.6 – Dattatreya who is the owner of the Hotel, deposed
            that on 05.08.2009 the respondent came to his Hotel and
            drank tea.
    17.7.   P.W.7 – Mahantappa, who is the watchman working in
            Mahanteshwar High School of Chinamgera Village, deposed
            that the complainant prepared the surrender leave salary bill
            pertaining to himself and others through Block Education
            Officer, who presented the said bill to the S.T.O, Afzalpur
            for encashment. He further deposed that the complainant
            informed him that only after payment of Rs.500/- each, the
            bill will be passed from the Treasury office and hence, all of
            them contributed the amount and handed over the same to
            the complainant. Thus, P.W.7 being a circumstantial witness,
            categorically deposed about the demand of bribe by the
            respondent and contribution of Rs.500/- each and handing
            over the same to the complainant to make payment of bribe
            amount to the respondent.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                     1487

                     The State of Karnataka v. Chandrasha


     17.8.   P.W.8 – Subbaraya who is the Headmaster of Mahanteshwar
             High School of Mahantpur deposed that the complainant
             was working in the said School. In the year 2009-2010, they
             prepared a bill for encashment of surrender leave salary
             pertaining to the complainant and other staff members and
             submitted for the signature of the Block Education Officer
             through complainant; subsequently, he came to know that the
             official in the Sub Treasury Officer demanded bribe amount
             of Rs.2,000/-; and thereafter, about trap of the respondent
             by the Lokayukta Police.
     17.9.   P.W.9 – Rajshekhar who is the Assistant Engineer, stated in his
             evidence that on 11.08.2009, the Lokayukta Police requested
             him to prepare the sketch of the scene of occurrence; and
             accordingly, on 02.09.2009, he went to the spot, which was
             shown by one Basawaraj, and prepared the sketch of the
             scene of occurrence (Ex.P.24) and Ex.P.24 (a) is his signature.
     17.10. P.W.10 – Basawaraj, ASI of DCIB Unit, deposed about
            the lodging of the complaint by the complainant and the
            registration of the First Information Report. He further deposed
            about the institution of trap on the respondent and drawing
            of entrustment mahazar (Ex.P2).
     17.11. PW.12 – Maheshwargouda is the Investigating Officer, who
            deposed that on 05.08.2009, the complainant came and
            lodged a complaint and also produced the tape recorder
            conversation recorded by him; on the basis of the same,
            FIR (Ex.P26) was registered against the respondent. He
            narrated in detail about the trap proceedings conducted
            on 05.08.2009 and successful completion of the same and
            drawing of seizure mahazar and material objects. Thus,
            PW.10 and P.W.12 consistently and categorically deposed
            about the demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the
            respondent and also recovery of tainted currency notes
            from the possession of the respondent and the same was
            reiterated by them in their cross-examination, which clearly
            corroborated with the evidence of P.W.l to P.W.3.
18. On the side of the respondent, no oral and documentary evidence
    were adduced to substantiate his stand. Though the learned counsel
    for the respondent made elaborate cross-examination, nothing was
1488                                                        [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


     elicited to disbelieve the evidence of prosecution side witnesses.
19. Thus, from the aforesaid materials, it is absolutely clear that the
    evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 read with the evidence of P.W.4 and
    P.W.5 along with Investigating Officers (P.W.10 and P.W.12) who
    supported the case of the prosecution in entirety about ‘demand’
    and ‘acceptance’ of the bribe amount and also recovery of the same
    from the possession of the respondent.
20. The main contention of the learned senior counsel for the respondent
    is that the bill was passed on 29.07.2009 and it was sent for
    preparation of cheque to P.W.4 on the same day itself and the
    cheque (Ex.P19) was also made ready on 30.07.2009 and hence,
    on the date of alleged trap i.e., on 05.08.2009, there was no work
    pending with the respondent and he did not demand or accept bribe
    from the complainant. However, the said cheque was not issued to
    the complainant and neither any intimation in this regard was sent
    to the school authorities, till 05.08.2009 nor was the complainant
    informed that the cheque was already ready. That apart, no plausible
    reason was adduced on the side of the respondent, as to why, it
    was retained in the office of the Sub Treasury without being issued
    to the party concerned. It is a common knowledge that when the bill
    was submitted to the office of Sub Treasury for sanction, only after
    issuance of the cheque to the concerned, the work will be treated
    as completed. In the instant case, no cheque was issued, and it was
    kept pending as on the date of trap. Therefore, the contention so
    made on the side of the respondent cannot be countenanced by us.
21. It is settled law that the two basic facts viz., ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’
    of gratification have been proved, the presumption under Section
    20 can be invoked to the effect that the gratification was demanded
    and accepted as a motive or reward as contemplated under Section
    7 of the Act. However, such presumption is rebuttable. Even on the
    basis of the preponderance of probability, the accused can rebut the
    same. In the present case, the prosecution proved its case beyond
    reasonable doubt, in respect of the ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of the
    bribe amount from the complainant and recovery of tainted currency
    notes from the possession of the respondent. The said operation is
    preceded by recording of the demand in the tape recorder. In such
    circumstances, the respondent has to rebut the presumption by
    disproving the case of the prosecution either in the cross-examination
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                   1489

                     The State of Karnataka v. Chandrasha


     of the prosecution side witnesses or by adducing material evidence
     that the receipt of Rs.2,000/- was not a bribe amount, but a legal
     fee or repayment of loan. However, he failed to do so and on the
     contrary, we find the prosecution to have proved the case beyond
     any doubt.
22. Though the respondent in his statement recorded under Section
    313 Cr.P.C as well as before the Lokayukta Police, stated that there
    were loan transactions between himself and the complainant; 8 to 10
    days prior to the date of incident the complainant borrowed a hand
    loan of Rs.2,000/- from the respondent; and when the respondent
    pressurized the complainant to return the loan amount, the present
    false case was registered against him, there was absolutely no
    evidence either in oral or documentary adduced to substantiate
    the same. It is an admitted fact that the complainant was working
    in a private aided school and the respondent was working as
    First Division Assistant in the Office of the Sub Treasury, Afzalpur.
    There was no material evidence produced to the effect that both
    were related closely to each other so as to grant a hand loan
    and to prove the grant of loan. In the absence of such material
    evidence produced, the plea so taken by the respondent, seems
    to be unbelievable. Therefore, it can safely be inferred that the
    respondent had received or accepted the currency notes on his
    own volition and the testimony of P.W.1 to P.W.5 including the
    testimony of P.W.10 and P.W.12 would go to show the demand,
    acceptance and recovery of the bribe amount from the possession
    of the respondent and the prosecution proved the charges framed
    against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt.
23. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we find that the trial Court based
    on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, rightly
    found the respondent guilty of the offences punishable under Sections
    7 and 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Act and sentenced him
    for the same. However, the High Court by placing reliance on the
    decision of this Court in A.Subair’s case (supra), held that since no
    work was pending with the respondent as on the date of trap, the
    ingredient to attract and complete the offences punishable under
    Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act was not
    met. The view so taken by the High Court is unsustainable as the
    decision of this Court in A.Subair’s case (supra) did not support the
1490                                                      [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


     view. It was a case where the complainant was not even examined
     and there were discrepancies in the evidence of the other witnesses.
     In the present case, we do not find such infirmities. Insofar as the
     reference to sub section (3) to Section 20 regarding the triviality
     of the gratification, the act sought or performed, and the amount
     demanded cannot be considered in isolation to each other. The
     value of gratification is to be considered in proportion to the act
     to be done or not done, to forbear or to not forebear, favour or
     disfavour sought, so as to be trivial to convince the Court, not to
     draw any presumption of corrupt practice. It is also not necessary
     that only if substantial amount is demanded, the presumption can be
     drawn. The overall circumstances and the evidence will also have
     to be looked into. Section 20 would come into operation only when
     there is no nexus between the demand and the action performed
     or sought to be performed. But, when the fact of receipt of payment
     or an agreement to receive the gratification stands proved, there is
     a clear case of nexus or corroboration and the presumption itself is
     irrelevant. Section 20 gets attracted when it is proved that the public
     servant has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification other
     than legal remuneration and in that case, presumption is that it is
     the motive or reward for any of the acts covered under Section 7, 11
     or 13(1)(b) of the Act. The presumption under Section 20 is similar
     to Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where the
     onus is on the accused to prove that he is not guilty of the offences
     charged. The first two limbs under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section
     13 make it clear that adequacy of consideration is irrelevant to draw
     the presumption. That apart, sub-section (3) only grants a discretion
     to Court to decline from drawing any presumption if the amount is
     so trivial so that such inference of corruption is not fairly possible
     in the facts of the case. Therefore, it is not a rule but an exception
     available to the Court to exercise its discretionary power in the facts
     and circumstances of the case. In the present facts of the case, we
     are not inclined to exercise such discretion. As such, the judgment of
     acquittal passed by the High Court is illegal, erroneous and contrary
     to the materials on record.
24. We are conscious of the fact that in an appeal against acquittal,
    if two views are possible and the Court below has acquitted the
    accused, the appellate Court would not be justified in setting aside
    the acquittal merely because the other view is also possible. In the
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                  1491

                     The State of Karnataka v. Chandrasha


     present case, the recovery of bribe amount from the respondent
     having been proved, the explanation offered by the respondent in
     the absence of any concrete material, is clearly of the wall. Once
     the aspects of ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of the bribe amount having
     been established beyond doubt, in our opinion, no two views are
     possible in the matter, and thus the approach adopted by the High
     Court is perverse and liable to be interfered with.
25. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed by setting aside
    the judgment and order passed by the High Court and by restoring
    the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. The trial Court
    is directed to take necessary steps to secure the respondent and
    commit him in prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence
    and to recover the fine imposed on him.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi jain