PROMOD CHANDRA SHEKHAR Vs. REX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the order which I propose to make in this case it is unnecessary to state the facts at any length. The applicant was the stenographer of the District Magistrate; of Bulandshahr and it is not in dispute that-he is a public servant. On 19-11-1947, he received from one Fakira two ten-rupee notes-It is the case for the prosecution that he accepted these notes as a gratification other than legal remuneration, in respect of an official act, and thereby committed an offence punishable? under Section 161, Penal Code. The receipt of the notes is admitted by the applicant, but he says that they were received by him in exchange for notes of the same total value, but of smaller denomination, given by him to Fakira.

(2.) Section 3, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (II [2] of 1947), provides, inter alia, that an offence punishable under Section 161, Penal Code, shall be deemed to be a cognisable offence for the purposes of the Code of Criminal Procedure. To this section there is a proviso in the following terms : "Provided that a police officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police shall not investigate any such offence without the order of a Magistrate of the First Class or make any arrest therefor without a warrant." It is not in dispute in this case that the alleged; offence was dealt with as a cognisable offence, and that the investigation was conducted by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

(3.) Section 4, Prevention of Corruption Act, provides, inter alia, that where in any trial for an offence punishable under Section 161, Penal Code, it is proved that an accused person has accepted for himself any gratification (other than legal remuneration) it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted that gratification as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 161 of the Code. It is contended by the Crown that this presumption arises as soon as the prosecution has proved that the accused was a public servant and that he accepted a sum of money, whereas the applicant contends that the prosecution must go further and show that the sum of money was accepted as a reward or recompense for something done or to be done.