Presumption U/S. 20 PC Act Not Applicable Where Demand Has Not Been Proved: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court allowed the Appeal against the Judgment of the High Court, which affirmed the Appellant's conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a public servant in a corruption case, while explaining that the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not applicable when the alleged demand has not been proven.
The Court allowed the Appeal against the Judgment of the Telangana High Court, which affirmed the Appellant's conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the Act).
A Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanuallah held, “Thus, from all the official versions of the witness’ depositions before the Trial Court, the claimed/projected sequence of events by the prosecution-Respondent, of both (i) the money being placed in the rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of the Appellant’s bike, and; (ii) its recovery as also whether the same was in the presence of the Appellant, does not seem to inspire confidence. The same cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, in our considered opinion.”
AOR Mehaak Jaggi represented the Appellants, while AOR Devina Sehgal appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The complainant’s application for claiming compensation for trees that dried up due to drought was forwarded to the Appellant, who was working as a Revenue Inspector in the Mandal Revenue Office (MRO), for inspection.
However, the complainant alleged that the Appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 2,000 to conduct the inquiry and prepare a report.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court noted that there were “material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses.”
The Court referred to the decision in Krishnegowda v. State of Karnataka (2017), wherein it was held, “The minor variations and contradictions in the evidence of the eyewitnesses will not tilt the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused but when the contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses proves to be fatal to the prosecution case then those contradictions go to the root of the matter and in such cases the accused gets the benefit of doubt.”
The Bench remarked, “As far as the submission of the State is that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, as it then was, would operate against the Appellant is concerned, our analysis supra would indicate that the factum of demand, in the backdrop of an element of animus between the Appellant and complainant, is not proved. In such circumstances, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act would not militate against the Appellant.”
The Court further referred to its decision in Om Parkash v. State of Haryana (2006), wherein was held that “Even otherwise, where demand has not been proved, Section 20 will also have no application.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Accordingly, for reasons afore-stated, the instant appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the Appellant is set aside, extending to him the benefit of doubt. The Judgments of the Courts below are quashed.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Paritala Sudhakar v. State Of Telangana (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 655)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Navneet Mehaak Jaggi
Respondents: AOR Devina Sehgal; Advocate Vineet George
