Holding

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s acquittal, held that the evidence proved illegal gratification and the presumption under Section 20 applied, and restored the trial court’s conviction.

Summary

The State, represented by the CBI, appealed the High Court’s acquittal of G. Prem Raj, a senior civil engineer, who was convicted for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs 5,000 / Rs 50,000 in connection with a government contract. The prosecution proved that the accused demanded the money to facilitate the signing of the contract and preparation of the work schedule, and that the money was physically handled by him, as confirmed by a phenolphthalein test and corroborated by multiple witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the evidence established a demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, invoking the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which the High Court had ignored. It also ruled that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering the accused’s reinstatement and nullifying a departmental enquiry finding of guilt. Consequently, the Court set aside the acquittal and restored the trial court’s conviction.

Issues considered

The adequacy of the evidence to prove demand and acceptance of bribe under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Whether the presumption of corruption under Section 20 of the Act should be drawn in the present facts.
Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to acquit the accused and order his reinstatement, overriding the departmental enquiry findings.

Legislation cited

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(1)(d), s. 13(2), s. 20, s. 7

Subjects

corruptionbriberyPrevention of Corruption ActSection 20 presumptionacquittaldepartmental enquiryphenolphthalein testpublic servant

Judgment

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1044

A THE STATE REP. BY CBI, HYDERABAD
V.
G. PREM RAJ
(Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 2007)
NOVEMBER 19, 2009
B
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.]

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 13(1)(d) rlw s.
13(2); 7 and 20 - Demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification - Prosecution for - Complaint for demand of bribe
C - Trap arranged- Phenolphthalein test proved positive - Two
independent witnesses proving acceptance of illegal
gratification - Conviction by trial court-Acquittal by High Court
- High Court also directing reinstatement of the accused with
all retiral benefits - On appeal, held: Acquittal not justified in
D the facts of the case - The charge being uls. 7, presumption ul
s. 20 could be raised - High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction
in directing reinstatement of accused and writing off the
departmental enquiry whereby he was found guilty -
Jurisdiction.
E Respondent-accused was prosecuted u/s. 13(1)(d) r/
w s. 13(2) and s. 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
According to prosecution, PW1- complainant was
awarded contract for construction. He met the
respondent-accused for signature on the agreement and
F preparation of detailed programme of work schedule.
Accused demanded a bribe of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 5,0001-
as its first instalment. PW.1 lodged a complaint alleging
demand of bribe. PW. 1 stated that the accused had called
him at a hotel for signing the agreement and for the
payment of bribery. Trap was laid. Two witnesses (PWs 2 }
G and 4) were called. PW2 was to accompany PW1, and PW4
was required to go with the trap party. Agreement was
signed in the hotel. Thereafter, accused and PW1, when
reached near the scooter of the accused, he paid him the
bribe money (treated currency notes) which the accused
I-
H 1044
STATE REP. BY CBI, HYDERABAD v. G. PREM RAJ 1045

kept in the scooter bag. Thereafter accused handed over A
_.. the copy of agreement to PW-1. Trap party reached and
phenolphthalein test proved positive. Currency notes
were seized. Trial Court convicted the accused. High
Court, on appea·I, acquitted him. Hence, the present
appeal. B
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Unless the judgment of acquittal tends to
.I. be perverse or unless the inferences drawn in the 1

acquitting judgment were not at all reasonable, possibly
the acquittal should not be upset. However, in this case, c
there was no scope for recording of finding of acquittal.
[Para 17] [1062-B]
~
1.2. The theory of pressure i.e. the accused had to
approach the complainant for getting the signature on the
contract under pressure of urgency, was of no D
consequence and could not be viewed as helpful to the
defence. Even if the contract was to be got signed by PW-
1, the fact remains that for the purpose of contract,
ultimately, respondent-accused had to give the detailed
programme of work. The signatures of PW-1 could have E
been obtained on the agreement and at that time, it was
necessary that the work schedule was ready, which was
to be prepared by the respondent-accused and it was for
that purpose that the respondent-accused demanded the
money. The High Court has not properly viewed at this F
position that the bribe was demanded for completing the
contract, worth about Rs.35 lakhs. [Para 7] [1053-8-D]
1.3. The movement of the respondent-accused out of
his office and going to the hotel after office hours at 6'0
clock raises accusing finger towards the intentions of the G 1

respondent-accused. [Para 8] [1054-D-E]

~
1.4. The High Courts without going into the details of
the evidence, has merely come to the conclusion that no
demand was made. If no demand was made, there was no
reason for the respondent-accused to accept the money H
1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R

A offered by the complainant. The respondent-accused
cannot deny that the money was actually touched by him.
There is absolutely no cross-examination on the fact that
when he dipped his finger in the solution of Sodium
Carbonate, same turned pink, this is a very major
8 circumstance, that the High Court has failed to note and
· explain, which shows that the High Court has taken a very
casual attitude. That was a major circumstance and the I
most important incriminating circumstance, which was I
bound to be explained by the respondent-accused. [Para
9] (1055-8-F]
c
1.5. The evidence of complainant was fully
corroborated by the evidence of PW-2, who was a Panch
witness and who was to accompany the complainant: It
·can be said that there is some discrepancy about the hand,
by which the respondent-accused accepted the amount,
0 but that goes into the backdrop, on account of the clear
evidence of PW-7 the Investigating Officer. The cross-
examination of this witness, though lengthy, is perfunctory
and serves no purpose. His basic story has remained
unshaken. Some insignificant contradictions as to who
E gave the signal were brought in the evidence .of this
witness, but those would not affect the otherwise credib!ti'
evidence of this witness. Therefore, this was a case where
the evidence of PW-1 was totally corroborated by the
evidence of PW-2 and PW-7. All this has been totally lost
F sight of by the High Court. [Para 11] (1059-E-G]
1.6. Once it was proved that the respondent-accused
had accepted the money, the ·non~sei.*ure of the bag and
scooter will not affect the prosecution case~ was an
insignificant circumstance. The' fact cf the mattt=r is ttl'at the
G money was recovered from the sco'vter bag. [Para 12]
(1060-A] I

1. 7. There is nothing in the evidence of PW 5 to
suggest the inference drawn by the High Court that it was t-
at the instance of PW-5 that the respondent-accused was
H falsely implicated: The witness' merely gave the
STATE REP. BY CBI, HYDERABAD v. G. PREM RAJ 1047

background, in which the respondent-accused was asked A
to get the signatures. There is nothing in the evidence ot
- .I

:; the cross-examination of this witness to suggest that it was
at the instance of this witness that the respondent-
accused was falsely implicated. The inference drawn by
the High Court has absolutely no basis and only suggest$ El
that the High Court has read something in his evidence,
which was not there at all. [Para 13] [1060-8-C; 1060-E]
1.8. The High Court, without even discussing th~
evidence in details, has gone to the extent of saying that
the evidence of .respondent-accused and PW-1 has the c
effect of establishing the defence of the respondent•
accused by preponderance of probabilities. The
respondent-accused has raised a. theory that when he
returned to his scooter for proceeding after the signatures
were obtained, PW-1 approached him and forcibly thrust
the amount in his hands. Such theory of thrusting the 0
notes cannot be believed at all. [Para 13] [1061-A-8-C]
' .,
2.1. Prosecution was alleging that the respondent.
accused had accepted or obtained from the complainant,
gratification, which was other than the legal remuneration E
as a motive or reward for signing the contract or, as the
case may be, for providing the schedule of work, so as to
complete that contract. Therefore, there was no question
of the presumption not being there, once it was proved that
the respondent-accused had accepted the -illegal
gratification. In the whole cross-examination, the story of F
dernand of the respondent-accused prior to the contract
and the acceptance by the respondent-accused near the
scooter stand, has not at all been demolished. Once this
story becomes acceptable, there is no other go, but to
raise a presumption u/s. 20 of the Act. (Para 1OJ [1057-C- G
E; 1058-C-D]
2.2. This important provision of Section 20 was also
1

ig~ored by the High Court. This was again not a case
faUing u/s. 20(3} of the illegal gratification from being trivial,
sb as not to raise presumption - inference of corruption. H
1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A It was a substantial amount. Therefore, Section 20 of the
'Act could not have been ignored. [Para 10) [1058-0-F]
~

3. The High Court has honourably acquitted the
~
accused and directed his reinstatement as senior most
Civil Engineer, Civil Department with all usual retiral
B monetary benefits inclusive of restoration of seniority etc.
with immediate retrospective effect. This was certainly not
the jurisdiction on the part of the High Court, which had
only to find whether the respondent-accused was guilty
or not of the offence alleged against him. It has come in ~
'
c evidence that a full-fledged departmental enquiry was
conducted against the accused, wherein he was found
guilty. The step taken by the High Court in straightaway
writing off the findings in departmental enquiry is without
any justification. This aberration on the part o'f the High
Court speaks of its r'holly incorrect approach. [Para 19)
D (j062-D-F]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 261 of 2007. '"'
...,
From the Judgment & Order dated 11.11.2005 of the High
E Court of Andhra Pradesh in Crl. Appeal No. 2'26 of 2002.
Naresh Kaushik, Ranjana Narain, P.K. Dey, AK. Sharm&
(for P. Parmeswaran), for the Appellant.
G. Prakash, for the Respondent.
F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. In this Appeal, the judgment of the
High Court, allowing the appeal of the respondent heroin and
acquitting him of the offence punishable under Sect~o~ ·;3 (1) (d) .
read with Section 13 (2) and Section 7 of the Prevention of
G Corruption Act (hereinafter called "the Act" for short) is in
challenge, at the instance of the State.
2. The respondent, at the relevant time, was working as a
Senior Engineer in Ml OHAN I at Hyderabad during the year 1998.
H
STATE REP. BY CBI, HYDERABAD v. G. PREM RAJ 1049
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
A
One Preetpal Singh Sodhi of Mis Hardeep Industries was A
awarded a contract for the construction of Structural Steel Sheds
for VSSC stores at MIDHANI. He was accordingly informed to
contact the respondent-accused for preparation of detailed
_.,
_
programme of work schedule, as also for signing the original
agreement. Accordingly, he met the respondent-accused and
B
requested him to prepare a detailed programme of work
schedule for enabling him to sign the agreement. This was in the
last week of May, 1998. The respondent-accused demanded a
bribe of Rs.50,000/- or at least to pay Rs.5,000/- as first
installment by 27.5.1998, failing which the respondent-accused
showed his reluctance to prepare the detailed programme of •C
work. Being aggrieved by this illegal demand, the said Preetpal
Singh Sodhi (hereinafter called PW-1) lodged a complaint
against G.Prem Raj (respondent-accused) with SP, CBI,
Hyderabad. It was alleged that there was a telephonic
conversation between Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant- PW- D
"" 1) and the respondent-accused, according to which the
complainant was called at the Taj Mahal Hotel, Narayanguda,
"""" Hyderabad on 27.5.1998 for signing the agreement, as well as,
for the demand of bribery. After the complaint was registered, a
trap was led by one R.M. Khan, Inspector, CBI (PW-7), wherein
two witnesses were called and the usual demonstration of the E,.
use of phenolphthalein powder was shown. The notes were
soiled with the phenolphthalein powder. They were handed over
to Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant) with the usual instructions
that he would go to Taj Mahal Hotel along with M.N. Sampath
Kumar (PW-2) while the other Panch, H. Ramakrishna Murthy F
(PW-4) would be reaching with the trap party. Specific instruction
was given that unless the bribe was demanded by the
respondent-accused, Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant) would
not touch the notes kept in his pocket. Accordingly, Preetpal
Singh Sodhi (complainant) along with the trap party reached the C3
hotel, where at about 6 O'clock the respondent-accused also
arrived on a scooter and parked the scooter in the parking area.
Then Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant-PW-1) and the
respondent-accused went inside the hotel followed by M.N.
Sampath Kumar (PW-2). Preetpal Singh.Sodhi (PW-1) and the
H
1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A respondent-accused occupied one table in the hotel and the next ..
table was occupied by M.N. Sampath Kumar (PW-2). The
agreements (Exhibits P-5 to P-8) were signed in Taj Mahal Hotel
but the respondent-accused did not hand over the agreements
to Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant). The complainant and the
respondent-accused came out of the hotel, who were followed
B
by M.N. Sampath Kumar WW-2). Preetpal Singh Sodhi
(complainant) and the respondent-accused reached near the
..._
scooter of the respondent-accused where the respondent-
accused demanded the bribe money for han~ing over the copy
of the agreement. Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) gave money
c which the respondent-accused accepted and kept the.same in
the scooter's bag. The respondent-accused handed over the
copy of the agreement to Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant).
Ir the meanwhile, M.N. Sampath Kumar (PW-2), who was
watching the whole scenario, gave a signal to the trap party. The
p trap party reached immediately and apprehended the hands of
.,..
the respondent-accused. The ~sual demonstrations were done
in, Taj Mahal Hotel itself, which showed that the fingers of the /
respondent-accused were soiled and they were dipped in the
$odium Carbonate solution. The said solution turned pink. The
respondent-accused removed the currency notes from the bag
I= and the same were seized. The Panchnama was executed there
~nd a search was conducted in the house of the respondent-
f!ccused, but nothing incriminating was found. On this basis, the
~anction was obtained for the prosecution which was granted
vide Exhibit P-15 by Shri AK. Taneja, the Sanctioning Authority
F (PW-8), and on that basis, the charge-sheet came to be filed.
3. In support of its claim, the prosecution examined Preetpal
Singh (PW-1), M.N. Sampath Kumar (PW-2) and other seven
witnesses including R.M. Khan (PW-7), the Investigating Officer, ....
as also, PW-8, Sanctioning Authority. The documents were also
~ presented and were proved and on that basis, the trial
proceeded. The defence of the respondent-accused was that of
-·
denial. He examined himself as DW-1 and contended that he
was framed, more particularly, by his superior officers. He
particularly pleaded that there were many discrepancies
H including the discrepancy in the timing of the First Information
STATE REP. BY CBI, HYDERABAD v. G. PREM RAJ 1051
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
.~
Report (FIR). He also pleaded that there was no question of his . A
preparing the detailed programme and in fact, the said
programme was to be prepared by Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-
1), the contractor himself and there was no question of his
obliging the complainant by preparing the said programme. He
pointed out that there was no question of obliging by signing the
B
contract because the contract was already awarded in favour of
Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant). He, therefore, described
... the whole prosecution case as false. The learned Trial Judge,
however, found the respondent herein guilty and he was convicted
for the offence charged.
4. The respondent-accused, therefore, filed an appeal
c
before the High Court and the High Court acquitted the
respondent-accused. It is this acquittal which is challenged
before us in the present case.

.,, 5. Shri Naresh Kaushik, Learned Counsel appearing on D
behalf of the appellant urged that the High Court has erred in
allowing the appeal even when it was proved that ~he amount of
bribe has passed from Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant) to
the respondent-accused and the respondent-accused had
accepted the same. The Learned Counsel pointed that the High
Court would have raised the presumption under Section 20 of E
the Act and it should have been further noted by the High Court
that the respondent-accused had not explained as to why he had
accepted the amount, which was not his lawful deliberation. It is
further argued by the Learned Counsel that while allowing the
appeal, the High Court had nowhere shown as to how the Trial F
Court had gone wrong. The Learned Counsel further urged that
the respondent-accused had no business to go to Taj Mahal
- Hotel for doing an official work of getting the signatures of the
complainant (PW-1) and that it was strange that the official work
should have been done at Taj Mahal Hotel. The Learned Counsel
·G
further urged that it was clinchingly proved by the prosecution that
the bribe was demanded by the respondent-accused, who was
a public servant and in pursuance of the demand, he also
accepted the bribe of Rs.5,000/-. It was pointed out that the
witnesses had absolutely no reason to speak against the
H
1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A respondent-accused and their disinterested testimony was ~
bound to be accepted and was rightly accepted by the Sessions
~
Judge and yet even without finding any fault with the evidence,
the High Court chose to acquit the respondent;-accused on
imaginary grounds.
B 6. As against this, Shri G. Prakash Rao, Learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the defence supported the judgment of
the High Court and pointed out that the story of the prosecution
was extremely unnatural. He also pointed out that L.N. Das (PW- ...
5) was inimical towards the respondent-accused, therefore, he
c was framed. He further pointed out that there was absolutely no
reason for the respondent-accused to demand bribe, as the
contract was already awarded in favour of Preetpal Singh Sodhi
(complainant) and the only remaining formality was the
preparation of the programme, which had to be done by Preetpal
Singh Sodhi (complainant) himself. In such circumstances, there
D was no occasion for demanding any bribe as the respondent-
accused was not in a position to oblige Preetpal Singh Sodhi "'
(complainant) in any manner. Learned Counsel urged that there
was no question of raising the presumption under Section 20 of
the Act, as such, presumption could not be raised where the
E respondent-accused was charged with the offence punishable
under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act. Lastly, the Learned Counsel
urged that where two views are possible, the Court should be
slow in upsetting the judgment of acquittal.
7. The High Court proceeded initially on the basis ·of the
F story that the agreement had to be got signed by Preetpal Singh
Sodhi (complainant-PW-1), the Contractor within 19 days and,
therefore, L.N. Das (PW-5) had asked the respondent-accused
to take the signatures of Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) on the
agreement before that date. The High Court further noted that
G initially the respondent-accused was hesitant to approach
-
Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1), but later on, he agreed to do so.
According to the High Court, L.N. Das (PW-5) had admitted in
his cross-examination that since the time of contract was likely
to expire, he requested the respondent-accused to get it signed
and as such, there was pressure on the part of the management
H
STATE REP. BY CBI, HYDERABAD v. G. PREM RAJ1053
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

..
to get the agreement signed within time. In our opinion, this . A
,J
___, theory of pressure was of no consequence and could not be
viewed as helpful to the defence. Even if the contract was to be
got signed by Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1 ), the fact remains that
i
for the purpose of contract, ultimately, the respondent-accused
had to give the detailed programme of work. The signatures of
B
Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) could have been obtained on the
agreement and at that time, it was necessary that the work
schedule was ready, which was to be prepared by the .
....
respondent-accused and it was for that purpose that the
respondent-accused demanded the money. It must be noted
here that after putting the signatures of Preetpal Singh Sodhi c
(complainant) on the agreement and after preparation of the work
schedule, the contract would be complete and the complainant
would get the benefit of huge contract worth about Rs.35 lakhs.
The bribe was for this purpose. The signing of the contract,
preparation of the work schedule were mere formalities. The D
,. High Court has not properly viewed at this position that the oribe
was demanded for completing the contract, worth about Rs.35
lakhs.
8. The High Court further committed an error in presuming
that the amount of Rs.5,000/-, which was the first installment of E
Rs.50,000/-was to be paid for signing the agreement and it was
to be paid at Taj Mahal Hotel, Narayanguda, Hyderabad. It has
clearly come in the evidence of Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1)
that he did not want to part with the amount of Rs.5,000/- and it

- was, therefore, he made a complaint (Exhibit P-3) on 27.5.1998.
The evidence of Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) clearly suggests
that question of payment of Rs.50,000/- as bribe money arose
F

only after the letter dated 3.4.1998 (Exhibit P-1) was written,
informing him that he was awarded the contract. Admittedly, the
respondent-accused was working as a Senior Engineer (Civil)
and was in charge of the work mentioned in letter dated 3.4.1998 G
(Exhibit P-1 ). This was followed by letter dated 18.5.1998 (Exhibit
t P-2), wherein the value of the work was mentioned. It was only
after this that Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) met the respondent-
accused and at that time, the respondent-accused suggested
H
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

lo..
A that the site ·where the work was to be executed was not available, -...._

yet he asked the complainant to cooperate with him and
demanded Rs.50,000/- as bribe. The signing was to be done
•
by i:>reetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) and if the amount was
demanded only for purposes of signing, there was no question
B because Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) would have been keen
to get the contract. However, at the time of signing, the detailed
schedule of programme was also to be prepared by or with the
cooperation of the complainant and the respondent-accused. It
was, therefore, that the amount was demanded. Even the place
that was fixed for payment of amount was Taj Mahal Hotel. Now,
c one wonders as to why the responsible senior officer like the
respondent-accused would chose to go to Taj Mahal Hotel for
doing official work of getting the contract signed. He could have
easily called Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant) to his office and
got the agreement signed. However, that did not happen and they
D mutually agreed to meet at Taj Mahal Hotel in its dining room.
This is the first circumstance that the respondent-accused had
failed to explain and has also remained to be considered by the
High Court. The movement of the respondent-accused out of his
office and going to Taj Mahal Hotel after office hours at 6'0 clock
raises accusing finger towards the intentions of the respondent-
E
accused.
9. When Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant) was waiting
for the respondent-accused at Taj Mahal Hotel and when the
respondent-accused came to the Hotel, the respondent-accused
F asked as to whether the complainant had got the money. This
.
~
.
could not be said to be a demand, but was merely an assurance
that the money was available. It must be noted here that it took
, almost 3-4 hours for them to prepare the agreement and work
schedule and to get the signatures. What has to be noted is that
even after the signatures, the agreement was not handed over
G to Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1), and instead, the respondent-
accused took it near the scooter and it was there that the demand
for r:noney was made. There is undoubtedly some mix-up as to
where the demand was made because it has not come
specifically in the Examination-in-Chief of Preetpal Singh Sodhi
H

"
STATE REP. BY CBI, HYDERABAD v. G. PREM RAJ 1055
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
(PW-1) that the respondent-accused demanded the r:noney near A
the scooter. The Learned Counsel for the respondent-accused
tried to take advantage of this situation. However, we are not
impressed by this at all, as the respondent-accused had already
demanded the money and even this witness mentioned about
the demand of money as soon as he met the respondent-
8
accused. The High Court, without going into the details of the
evidence, has merely come to the conclusion that no demand
was made. Now, if no demand was made, there was no reason
for the respondent-accused to accept the money offered by the
complainant. The respondent-accused cannot deny that the
money was actually touched by him. There is absolutely no cross- C
examination on the fact that when he dipped his finger in the
solution of Sodium Carbonate, same turned pink, which was
clear indication that he touched the money and handled it. There
is no explanation, whatsoever, of this second fact as to how the
fingers of the respondent-accused were soiled with o
phenolphthalein·. This is the second circumstance, which was a
very major circumsta[lce, that the High Court has failed to note
and explain, which shows that the High Court has taken a very
casual attitude. We have scanned the judgment of the High Court
very carefully and find that the High Court has not, in any manner,
considered the factum of solution of Sodium Carbonate turning
pink when the fingers of the respondent-accused were dipped.
In fact, that was a major circumstance and the most important
incriminating circumstance, which was bound to be explained
by the respondent-accused.
10. At this juncture, we must also express as to how the
F
presumption was completely ignored by the High Court. Section
20 of the Act provides:-
20. Presumption where public servant accepts
gratification other than legal remuneration:-
(1) 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
H
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
c consideration which he knows to be
inadequate." ·

(2) Not relevant.

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

It was argued, though feebly, t~ the presumption could not
be drawn as the charge in this case was under Section 13(2)
read with Section ·13( 1)(d) of the Act. It was pointed out by the
Learned Counsel for the respondent-accused that Section
F 13(1)(d) did not attract the presumption under Section 20 of the
Act. What is being ignored by the Learned Counsel for the
respondent-accused is that the charge was not only under
Section 13( 1)(d), but also under Section 7 of the Act. Section 7
of the Act is as under:-
G 7. Public Servant taking gratification other than legal
remuneration in respect of an official act:-
Whoever, being orexpecting to be a public servant, accepts
or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from
any person, for himself or for any other person, any
H gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a

I
STATE REP. BY CBI, HYDERABAD v. G. PREM RAJ 1057
[VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]

motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official A
,.. act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of
his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for
,,, rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice
to any person, with the Central Government or any State
Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State
B
or with any local authority, corporation or Government
company referred to in clause (c) of Section 2, or with any
public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be
punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than
six months, but which may extend to five years and shall also
be liable to fine." c
Now, there can be no dispute that prosecution in this case
-was alleging that the respondent-accused had accepted or
obtained from Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant), gratification,
which was other than the legal remuneration as a motive or
reward for signing the contract or, as the case may be, for D
providing the schedule of work, so as to complete that contract.
Therefore, there was no question of the presumption not being
there, once it was proved that the respondent-accused had
accepted the illegal gratification. Now, the evidence is very clear
that firstly, the fingers of the respondent-accused were found to E
be soiled, which could not have been so soiled had he not
touched the currency notes offered by the complainant; and
secondly, it was found that those very currency notes were kept
in the bag attached to the scooter. Lot of criticism was made that
the scooter and/or the bag were nqt seized, ultimately from where
F
the money was recovered. Now, in this behalf, the evidence of
Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) is clear. He specifically deposed:-
"As agreed, I paid M.O. 1 to the accused."
Now, the words "as agreed" in the deposition of the PW-1
(complainant) are extremely important, as the same signify that G
there was an agreement between the respondent-accused and
the complainant that the complainant had agreed to pay
~ Rs.5,000/- as brib~ for the contract, its signing and for providing
the schedule of work. The complainant further goes on to say that
"the accused kept the money in the front bag of the scooter". H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Now, when we see the cross-examination of Preetpal Singh
Sodhi (PW-1), it is clear that nothing has been asked in respect
... -
of this version. It was feebly suggested to Preetpal Singh Sodhi
(PW-1) that no amount was pai~ before executing Exhibits P-5 ~

to P-8 or that it was not paid inside the hotel soon after the
~
agreement. The witness had clarified on this situation that the
B amount was paid in the parking area. He very specifically
mentioned in his cross-examination that he gave Rs.5,000/-with
his right hand and the respondent-accused accepted the money
with his right hand. It has also come out in the evidence that the
amount of Rs.5,000/-was taken out of the front bag of the scooter
c only after the hand wash test was completed. Some minor
insignificant omissions have been brought, which were of no
consequence. In the whole cross-examination, the story of
demand of the respondent-accused prior to the contract and the
acceptance by the respondent-accused near the scooter stand,
D has not at all been demolished. This, the High Court has
completely ignored. Once this story becomes acceptable, there
is no other go, but to raise a.presumption under Section 20 of· ~

the Act. This important provision of Section 20 was also ignored
by the High Court. This was again not a case falling under Section
20(3) of the illegal gratification from being trivial, so as not to
E raise presumption - inference of corruption. It was a substantial
amount. Therefore, Section 20 of the Act could not have been
ignored. The High Court has committed an error in ignoring this
provision and ignoring the fact that the presumption had to be
raised, and on that basis, it was up to the respondent-accused
F to explain as to how the amount came in his possession. In our
opinion, this amounts to a perverse appreciation of evidence.
This is the third aspect, on which the High Court has faltered.
11. The evidence of Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant)
was fully corroborated by the evidence of M.N. Sampath Kumar
G (PW-2), who was a Panch witness and who was to accompany
the complainant. Even this witness specifically says that after the
signatures were obtained on Exhibits P-5 to P-8, the respondent-
accused collected the books and came to the parking place,
where his scooter was parked and he was followed by the
H complainant and that when Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) asked
.,

STATE REP BY CBI, HYDERABAD v. G. PREM RAJ1059
[VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]
for a copy of the agreement book already signed, the A
respondent-accused demanded money from Preetpal Singh
--(
-" Sodhi (PW-1) and Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) removed M.O.
1, i.e., money from his left hand pocket. The respondent-accused
collected the money and handed over the copy of the agreement
. through his right hand. The respondent-accused placed the
B
,. money in the scooter bag and the complainant (PW-1) gave pre-
arranged signal. It can be said that there is some discrepancy
about the hand, by which the respondent-accused accepted the
amount, but that goes into the backdrop on account of the clear
~ evidence of R.M. Khan (PW-7), the Investigating Officer. R.M.
Khan (PW-7), in his evidence, has referred to the earlier c
demonstration, going of Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) and M.N.
Sampath Kumar (PW-2) to the Taj Mahal Hotel, the instructions
given to the complainant (PW-1) and the witness and the coming
. of the respondent-accused at about 6'0 clock. This officer was
all through watching the happenings. He also then proceeds to D
• say that Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) removed the currency
notes from his pant pocket and the same were given to the
• • respondent-accused, who took the same and kept it in the
I scooter bag and then the respondent-accused gave a copy of
' the agreement to Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1). On the signal
being received from M.N. Sampath Kumar (PW-2), the E
respondent-accused was caught and the money was recovered
_, after the demonstration of the Sodium Carbonate solution. The
cross-examination of this witness, though lengthy, is perfunctory
and serves no purpose. His basic story has remained unshaken .
•
~
Some insignificant contradictions as to who gave the signal were F
brought in the evidence of this witness, but those would not affect
the otherwise credible evidence of this witness. Therefore, this
was a case where the evidence of Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-
1) was totally corroborated by the evidence of M.N. Sam path
Kumar (PW-2) and R.M. Khan (PW-7). All this has been totally G
lost sight of by the High Court.
12. Much was said about the scooter or the scooter bag not
being seized. We do not see as to how that would have helped,
~
once it was proved that the respondent-accused had accepted
the money. Merely because it was kept in the scooter by the H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A respondent-accused, in our opinion, was an insignificant
circumstance. The fact of the matter is that the money was :i.

recovered from the scooter bag. It would have certainly been ""
better had the scooter and scooter bag been seized, however,
in our opinion, the non-seizure of the bag and scooter will not ~

affect the prosecution case. "~
B
13. Much was made of the evidence of L.N. Das (PW-5).
The High Court has gone to the extent of saying that it was at the
instance of L.N. Das (PW-5) that the respondent-accused was ...
falsely implicated. We have scanned the evidence of L.N. Das
c (PW-5) very carefully, but we find nothing in the evidence of this
witness to suggest the inference drawn by the High Court. The
witness merely gave the background, in which the respondent-
accused was asked to get the signatures and he also
undoubtedly has said that one B. Ashok Kumar was kept for this
work, however, sinc;:e the respondent-accused was made in j;.
D charge-of the work, the respondent-accused was asked to collect
the signatures, so as to get the contract completed. We do not ~
find anything in the evidence or the cross-examination of this
witness to suggest that it was at the instance of this witness that
the respondent-accused was falsely implicated. The inference
E drawn by the High Court has absolutely no basis and only
suggests that the High Court has read something in his evidence, ,,
which was not there at all. Evidence of AK. Taneja (PW-8) is
't-
merely formal and nothing has been addressed to us as regards
his evidence. He had given the sanction for prosecution. In fact,
no arguments were addressed on the question of sanction.
F
14. The evidenc~ of the respondent-accused is also
perused by us, as much was made by the High Court of that
evidence. The High Court, without even discussing the evidence
in details, has gone to the extent of saying that the evidence of I

'\
G G. Premraj (respondent-accused & DW-1) has the effect of
establishing the defence of the respondent-accused by
preponderance of probabilities. The respondent-accused admits
here in t1is evidence that on 27.5.1998, Preetpal Singh Sodhi ~

(PW-1) telephoned him at about 1'0 clock,·asking him to come
to Taj Mahal Hotel for signing the agreement. .One wonders as
H

'•
STATE REP. BY CBI, HYDERABAD v. G. PREM RAJ 1061
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

to why the respondent-accused chose to accept this suggestion A
on the part of the Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) even if it is held
to be true. Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1), however, disowns
telephoning the respondent-accused. The respondent-accused
has raised a theory that when he returned to his scooter for
proceeding after the signatures were obtained, Preetpal Singh B
Sodhi (PW-1) approached him and forcibly thrust the amount in
his hands. Now, we fail to follow as to what could prompt Preetpal
Singh Sodhi (PW-1) to thrust the money into the hands of the
respondent-accused. In our opinion, his evidence was nothing,
but a poor attempt to explain the change of colour of the Sodium
Carbonate solution after his fingers were dipped in it. Such theory C .
of thrusting the notes cannot be believed at all.
15. The Sessions Judge in this case, after discussing the
evidence, has given cogent findings. In Para 17 of his judgment,
he asked a right question as to whether the amount was accepted
by the respondent-accused or was thrust in the hands of the D
respondent-accused. He has also addressed himself about the
other contentions. He has, after the discussion, chosen to believe
the evidence of Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1), M.N. Sampath
Kumar (PW-2) and R.M. Khan (PW-7) and has come to the
conclusion that the amount was accepted. He has rightly stated E
that there was a meeting of minds between the respondent-
accused and complainant to meet at Taj Mahal Hotel. The
Sessions Judge has rightly held that there was no question of
anybody having any enmity with the respondent-accused, much
less on the part of the complainant and, therefore, there was no
reason for these persons to falsely implicate the respondent- F
accused. As regards the discrepancy in the First Information
Report (FIR), the Sessions Judge has rightly attributed this to the
failure of memory, as the witness has deposed after 3 years. The
Sessions Judge has also noted that the respondent-accused
had, at no point of time, complained to anybody that the amount G
was thrust in his hand. We find that the judgment of the Trial Court ·
was quite reasonable and even without raising the presumption
under Section 20 of the Act, the Trial Court had inferred that the
respondent-accused had committed offence under Sectipns 7,
13(2) read with Section 13( 1)(d) of the Act. H
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 1'6. We do not find, in comparison, any reasons, much less,
good reasons, having been given by the High Court for its
..
disagreeing with the judgment of the Trial Court .
17. We are quite alive to the fact that unless the judgment
of acquittal tends to be perverse or unless the inferences drawn
_....
B in the acquitting judgment were not at all reasonable, possibly
the acquittal should not be upset. However, in this case, as we
have already pointed out, there was no scope for recording of
finding of acquittal.
18. For all these reasons, we are unable to agree with the
C impugned judgment of the High Court. We would, therefore,
choose to set aside the same and restore the judgment of the
Trial Court.
19. Last, but not the least, we are extremely surprised to read
the last portion of the judgment of the High Court, wherein, the
0 High Court has honourably acquitted the accused and directed
his reinstatement as senior most Civil Engineer, Civil
Department, MIDHANI with all usual retiral monetary benefits
inclusive of restoration of seniority etc. with immediate
retrospective effect. We wonder as to under what powers, the
E High Court has acted. This was certainly riot the jurisdiction on
the part of the High Court, which had only to find whether the
respondent-accused was guilty or not of the offence alleged
against him. It has come in evidence that a full-fledged
departmental enquiry was conducted against the accused,
F wherein he was found guilty. We are shocked to see the step
taken by the High Court in straightaway writing off the findings in
departmental enquiry without any justification. This aberratlun on
the part of the High Court speaks of its wholly incorrect a~proach.
K.K.T. Appeal allowed.