MADHUKAR BHASKARRAO JOSHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Once the prosecution established that gratification in any form - cash or kind - had been paid or accepted by a public servant the Court is under a legal compulsion to presume that the said gratification was paid or accepted as a motive or reward to do (or forbear from doing) any official act. The only exception to the said rule is, when the gratification is so trivial that no inference of corruption could in fairness be drawn on a particular fact situation the Court has no such legal compulsion to presume. Such a presumption was introduced in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act of 1947, for short) through a later amendment. The said legal presumption was carried forward into the successor enactment of 1988.

(3.) In the present case, a public servant admitted that a certain amount was paid to him by a private party, but he sought to explain that it was an amount otherwise payable to him and hence it was no gratification at all. The trial Court and the High Court found that the public servant failed to prove that the amount received by him was legally due to him otherwise. The trial Court convicted him under S. 5(2) of the Act of 1947, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 5000/-. Though he was convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code also the Court did not award any separate sentence on that account. When he appealed to the High Court, a single Judge concurred with the finding and confirmed the conviction. However, learned single Judge reduced the imprisonment limb of the sentence to just one day, but enhanced the fine limb to Rs. 3000/-.