M NARSINGA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can a legal presumption be based on a factual presumption The later is discretionary whereas the former is compulsory. Such a question arose in this appeal and in view of the importance of the issue a two-Judge Bench has referred this case to be heard by a larger Bench. The legal presumption envisaged in Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") is that on proof of certain fact the Court "shall presume" certain other fact. When there is no direct evidence for establishing the primary fact the Court has to depend upon the process of inference drawn from other facts to reach the said primary fact. The crux of the question involved, therefore, is whether an inference thus made could be used as a premise for the compulsory presumption envisaged in Section 20 of the Act.

(2.) The aforesaid question arose from the following assortment of facts. Appellant was Manager of a Milk Chilling Centre attached to Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Co-operative Federation. He is alleged to have received bribe money of Rs. 500/- from a milk-transporting contractor (PW1-Satya Prasad). He was caught red-handed on 20-4-1989 in a trap arranged by the officials of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). They charge-sheeted him before a Special Court for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. After trial the Special Judge convicted him and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- under each of the above counts. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to a period of one year. This appeal is in challenge of the said conviction and sentence.

(3.) A summary of the allegations made against the appellant are these : PW1-Satya Prasad was to get some amount from Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation for transporting milk to or from the Milk Chilling Centre at Luxettipet (Adilabad district). He approached the appellant for taking prompt steps so as to enable him to get the money disbursed. But appellant demanded Rs. 500/- for sending the recommendation in favour of payment of the amount due to PW1. As the appellant persisted with his demand PW1 yielded to the same, but before handing over the money to the appellant PW1 lodged a complaint (Ex.P2) with the DSP of Anti-Corruption Bureau. On the basis of the said complaint PW7 (DSP) registered EX.P18 FIR and then made all arrangements for a trap to catch the corrupt public servant red-handed.