Supreme Court Rules That Accused Possessing Bribe Money Without Valid Explanation Shall Be Presumed Guilty

Must Read

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA)....

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Follow us

Supreme Court of India made life a little more difficult for the corrupt as it ruled that accused possessing bribe money shall be presumed guilty if he cannot provide a valid explanation for ownership of such huge amount of money.

Case Title

State of Gujrat v. Navinbhai Chandrakant Joshi etc.

Facts of the Case

Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 both were working as junior clerks in the Non-Agriculture Department. Complainant purchased a plot at Village Chhatral for establishing a new firm for manufacturing of acrylic monomal. Agreement to sell was executed in December 1990 and sale deed was executed in March 1991. Complainant placed the revised plan for necessary Non-Agriculture permission. Accused No.1 reassured the complainant repeatedly that necessary permission will be granted but later informed the complainant that his application was rejected. Complainant paid a fine of Rs.368 on instructions of Taluka Development Officer and requested Accused no.1 to speed up the matter and grant him the necessary permissions. Accused no.1 asked for Rs. 1000 to speed up the matter and ultimately it was settled at Rs.500. Accused no.1 agreed to grant him all the required permission after he received the amount agreed. Complainant lodged a complaint with ACB Officer and after completion of all the formalities, a trap was set. On 3.04.1991 Accused no.1 guided the complainant to give the money to Accused no.2. Accused no.2 after receiving the money placed it in his left side shirt pocket and sat near Accused no.1. On showing the pre-arranged signal, Police came inside and seized the currency notes from Accused no.2. The ultraviolet light revealed the presence of anthracene powder on left side pocket of the shirt of Accused no.2 and on the hands of Accused no.1. The charge sheet was filed. Trial Court declared the two accused guilty and convicted them under section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. On appeal, High Court reversed the verdict of trial court citing that prosecution could not prove the demand and acceptance from the accused persons and amount could not be recovered from Accused no.1. State preferred an appeal against this verdict in the Supreme Court.

The decision of the Case

A bench of Justice Rajan Gogoi and Justice R Banumathi after examining the matter set aside the High Court judgment and said that

“Since it is established that the accused was possessing the bribe money, it was for them to explain that hoe the bribe money has been received by them and if he fails to offer any satisfactory explanation, it will be presumed that he has accepted the bribe. In the case in hand, the accused have not offered any explanation to rebut the presumption under section 20 of the Act.”

Moreover, the bench also observed that when the demand for illegal gratification was proved by the evidence, the High Court was not right in holding that the demand and acceptance were not proved.

Learning of the Case

From this case, we learn that a person possessing the bribe has to show to the court how he obtained such money to free himself from the charge of corruption.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -