Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 232 (CHH)

Banshilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2013-08-12

RADHE SHYAM SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against judgment dated 1-1-1997 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth the Act, 1988™), Bilaspur in Special Criminal Case No. 7/94. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Banshilal has been convicted under Section 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months, respectively, with a direction to run the sentences concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under : Appellant/accused Banshilal was posted as Patwari in Patwari Halka No. 16, Bagharra, Revenue Circle Kunda. Complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1) made a written complaint (Ex. P/1) to Dy. Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Bilaspur that he had purchased 5 dismil land from Niranjan Singh Thakur and his father Gorelal Sharma had purchased 52 dismil land from Vedprasad and the documents including stamp papers (sale deeds) were given to the appellant for mutation in the name of complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1) and his father Gorelal Sharma. On 22-1-1992, the appellant demanded Rs. 1200/- for mutation of the land. Complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1) gave Rs. 500/- to the appellant and he told the appellant that he would give the balance amount after completion of the mutation proceedings. On 18-2-1992, complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1) went to the appellant. The appellant again made demand for remaining amount of Rs. 700/-. Since complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1) did not want to give the rest of the demanded money to the appellant, he made the written complaint (Ex.P/1). The complaint (Ex.P/1) was forwarded to Inspector Hemant Khare (P.W. 8) for necessary action. Assistant Statistical Officer Suresh Chandra Singh (P.W. 2), Assistant Veterinary Surgeon Dr. R. K. Maitra (P.W. 3) were called as panch witnesses. The complaint (Ex.P/1) was given to Panch Witnesses for their perusal. They inquired about the complaint (Ex.P/1) from complaint Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1). A pre-trap demonstration was arranged vide Ex.P/2, wherein a solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in a glass. On dipping of a piece of plain paper in the solution, colour of the solution did not change. The complaint (Ex.P/1) was given to Panch Witnesses for their perusal. They inquired about the complaint (Ex.P/1) from complaint Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1). A pre-trap demonstration was arranged vide Ex.P/2, wherein a solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in a glass. On dipping of a piece of plain paper in the solution, colour of the solution did not change. Thereafter, another piece of paper containing phenolphthalein powder was dipped in the solution, colour of the solution turned pink. After giving demonstration, complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W.-1) was asked to submit currency notes of Rs. 700/-. He submitted currency notes of Rs. 700/- in the denomination of Rs. 100/- each. Pre-Trap Panchnama (Ex-P/2) was prepared and numbers of the currency notes were recorded therein and thereafter phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the currency notes and those currency notes were kept in the right pocket of the kurta worn by complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W.-1). He was informed and guided as to how the trap would be arranged and the role which he was required to play in the trap proceedings. Complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W.-1) was also instructed that he will give the money to the appellant only on his making demand. After preparing Pre-Trap Panchnama (Ex-P/2) and arranging pre-tap proceedings, the trap-team proceeded to the house of the appellant situated at Village Bagharra. Complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1) entered the house of the appellant and other members of the trap-team surrounded the house of the appellant. Complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1) gave the tainted currency notes to the appellant. After giving the money, complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1), as was already guided to him, transmitted the signal to the trap-team. After receiving the signal, members of the trap-team rushed to the spot immediately and caught hands of the appellant. The trap seized the currency notes from the appellant. A solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in which fingers of both the hands of the appellant were dipped, colour of the solution turned pink. The solution was kept in a separate bottle and sealed. At the instance of the appellant, currency notes were recovered. Numbers of the currency notes were compared with the numbers mentioned in Pre-Trap Panchnama (Ex-P/2), which were found to be similar. Another solution of Sodium Carbonate was prepared and the recovered currency notes were dipped therein, colour of the solution turned pink. At the instance of the appellant, currency notes were recovered. Numbers of the currency notes were compared with the numbers mentioned in Pre-Trap Panchnama (Ex-P/2), which were found to be similar. Another solution of Sodium Carbonate was prepared and the recovered currency notes were dipped therein, colour of the solution turned pink. The solution was kept in another bottle and sealed. Trap Panchnama was prepared vide Ex-P/7. Bina number nalishi (Ex-P/17) was recorded and thereafter regular FIR Ex-P/18) was recorded in special Police Establishment, Bhopal. Seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar for chemical examination vide Ex-P/21. Report (Ex-P/22) was received therefrom. In Ex-P/22, test of phenolphthalein was found positive. After completion of the investigation, sanction for prosecution against the appellant was obtained vide Ex-P/13 and charge-sheet was filed against him in the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge under the Act, 1988, Bilaspur. The trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, 1988. After appreciation of the evidence available on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. 3. To establish the charges against the accused/appellant, the prosecution examined Ramsanehi Sharma (PW-1), Suresh Chandra Singh (P.W. 2), Dr. R. K. Maitra (P.W. 3), CP Mishra (P.W.4), Ram Bahadur Singh (P.W. 5), Chandrabhan Singh (P.W. 6), Parmeshwar Singh (P.W. 7) and Investigating Officer Hemant Khare (P.W. 8). The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. 4. Mr. Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the prosecution has failed to prove demand of illegal gratification by reliable and cogent evidence. The Panch Witnesses did not hear the appellant demanding money of his own from the complainant. It is necessary for the prosecution to satisfy and establish that all the ingredients of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act, 1988 have been made out before convicting the accused, but the prosecution did not succeed in proving the ingredients of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act, 1988. He further submitted that even if a presumption is drawn as per Section 20 of the Act, 1988, the accused established his case that he did not accept any illegal gratification. Evidence of the prosecution witnesses are full of contradictions. Evidence of complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1) is not reliable and conviction cannot be based on his testimony. He further submitted that even if a presumption is drawn as per Section 20 of the Act, 1988, the accused established his case that he did not accept any illegal gratification. Evidence of the prosecution witnesses are full of contradictions. Evidence of complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1) is not reliable and conviction cannot be based on his testimony. Hence, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Bansari Dass v. State of Haryana 2010 (4) SCC 450 : (2010 Cri LJ 2419), C. M. Girish Babu v. CBI Cochin, High Court of Kerala 2009 (3) SCC 779 : ( AIR 2009 SC 2022 ) K. R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala, AIR 2006 SC 35 : 2005 Cri LJ 4648) T. Subramaniam v. State of Tamil Nadu 2005 (1) SCC 401, State of Maharashtra v. Rashid B. Mulani 2006 (1) SCC 407 : 2006 Cri LJ 794) Charan Lal v. State of M.P. 2012 (1) MPHT 87 (DB), Jiyalal v. State of M.P. 2011 (2) MPHT 137 : (2011 Cri LJ 1836) (DB), Shravan S. Babulal Malviya v. State of M.P. 2011 (2) MPHT 385 (DB), Ramesh Prasad Ahirwar v. State of M.P. (Now CG), 2013 (1) CGLJ 158 , Leela Bai v. State of M.P. (Now CG) 2013(1) CGLJ 332 , Harprasad Maravi v. State of M.P. (Now CG), 2013 (1) CGLJ 411 , Motilal Banawala v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) 2012 (1) CGLRW 166, Veerchand v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2012 (2) CGLRW 360, Ashok Kumar Chandrakar v. State of CG, 2011 (2) CGLR 23 and Asha Verma v. State of M.P. (Now CG) 2011 (2) CGLJ 374 . 5. On the other hand, Mr. Anant Bajpai, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent, supporting the impugned judgment, refuted the above arguments and submitted that the prosecution has led clinching and reliable evidence. The bribe money was recovered from the appellant. When fingers of the appellant were dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate, colour of the solution turned pink. Therefore, there is a presumption against the appellant and the judgment of conviction and sentence against him does not warrant any interference by this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the record of Special Criminal Case No. 7/94 with utmost circumspection. 7. Therefore, there is a presumption against the appellant and the judgment of conviction and sentence against him does not warrant any interference by this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the record of Special Criminal Case No. 7/94 with utmost circumspection. 7. Complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1) deposed that his father purchased 52 dismil land from Vedprasad and he purchased 5 dismil land from Niranjan Thakur by registered sale deed. He further deposed that he had given the sale deeds to the appellant for mutation. The appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 1200/- for completing the mutation proceedings. He gave a sum of Rs. 500/- and promised the appellant to give him rest of the money after completion of mutation proceedings. On 20-2-1992, he went to the Lokayukta Office, Bilaspur and made the written complaint (Ex-P/1). He further submitted that he had submitted the currency notes for a sum of Rs. 700/- in the denomination of Rs. 100/- each before the trap-team. Phenolphthalein powder was smeared on those currency notes and necessary proceedings were recorded. 8. Suresh Chandra Singh (P.W. 2) and Dr. R. K. Maitra (P.W. 3) deposed that on 20-2-1992 they were called by Lokayukta Office, Bilaspur. They went there met Mr. Verma, Dy. Superintendent of Police. Dy. Superintendent of Police sent them to Inspector Hemant Khare (P.W. 8), who introduced them with complainant Ramsanedhi Sharma (P.W. 1). Inspector Hemant Khare (P.W.8) gave the complaint (Ex-P/1) for their perusal. They inquired about the complaint (Ex-P/1) from complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1). Complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1) stated before them that the contents of the complaint (Ex-P/1) were true. Then they put their signatures on the complaint (Ex.P-1). They further deposed that a pre-trap demonstration was arranged. Complainant Ram-sanehi Sharma (P.W. 1) submitted currency notes of Rs. 700/- in the denomination of Rs. 100/- each. Pre-Trap Panchnama (Ex-P/2) was prepared. Numbers of the currency notes were recorded therein. Phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the currency notes and those currency notes were kept in the pocket of complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1). 9. Inspector Hemant Khare (P.W. 8) deposed that Complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1) made the complaint (Ex-P/1) against the appellant. He arranged a pre-trap demonstration. Complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W.1) submitted currency notes of Rs. 700/-, numbers thereof were recorded in Pre-Trap Panchnama (Ex-P/2). 9. Inspector Hemant Khare (P.W. 8) deposed that Complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1) made the complaint (Ex-P/1) against the appellant. He arranged a pre-trap demonstration. Complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W.1) submitted currency notes of Rs. 700/-, numbers thereof were recorded in Pre-Trap Panchnama (Ex-P/2). Phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the currency notes and they were kept in right pocket of the kurta worn by complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1). He further deposed that complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1) was instructed and guided as to how the trap would be arranged and the role which he was required to play in the trap proceedings. 10. Inspector Hemant Khare (P.W. 8), Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1), Suresh Chandra Singh (P.W. 2), Dr. R. K. Maitra (P.W. 3) and Ram Bahadur Singh (P.W. 5) deposed that they proceeded for Village Bagharra at about 2.30 p.m. and reached near the house of the appellant at about 4.30 p.m. they stayed near the house of the appellant and complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1) was sent to the house of the appellant. Complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1) informed them that the appellant was present near the bus stand. After sometime, complainant Ram-sanehi Sharma (P.W. 1) talked with the appellant and thereafter they came back to the house of the appellant and complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1) gave tainted money to the appellant. They further deposed that complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1) transmitted the signal. After receiving the signal, the trap-team rushed to the spot immediately and caught both the hands of the appellant. 11. Inspector Hemant Khare (P.W. 8) deposed that a solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in which fingers of both the hands of the appellant were dipped, colour of the solution turned pink. The solution was kept in a separate bottle and sealed. Currency notes were recovered at the instance of the appellant. Numbers of the currency notes were compared with the numbers mentioned in Pre-Trap Panchnama (Ex-P/2), which were found similar. Another solution of sodium carbonate was prepared and the recovered currency notes were dipped therein, colour of the solution turned pink. The solution was kept in another bottle and sealed. Another solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in which pocket of the shirt worn by the appellant was dipped, colour of the solution turned pink. The solution was kept in another bottle and sealed. The solution was kept in another bottle and sealed. Another solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in which pocket of the shirt worn by the appellant was dipped, colour of the solution turned pink. The solution was kept in another bottle and sealed. The shirt of the appellant and the recovered currency notes were seized. 12. On examining the accused under Section 313, Cr. P.C., he deposed that he was falsely implicated by complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1). 13. After perusal of evidence of complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1), Suresh Chandra Singh (P.W. 2), Dr. R. K. Maitra (P.W. 3), CP Mishra (P.W. 4), Ram Bahadur Singh (P.W. 5), Chandrabhan Singh (P.W. 6), Parmeshwar Singh (P.W. 7) and Investigating Officer Hemant Khare (P.W. 8), it is proved that a sum of Rs. 700/- was recovered from Chhajja (a projection/overhang/eaves) of the house of the appellant at the instance of the appellant and after comparing the numbers of the recovered currency notes with the number mentioned in the Pre-Trap Panchnama (Ex-P/2), they were found similar. 14. In Dalpat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1969 SC 17 : (1969 Cri LJ 262) the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the words in the discharge of his duty occurring in S. 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 do not constitute an essential ingredient of the offence under S. 5(1)(d) of the Act of 1947. The ingredients of the offence under S. 5(1)(d) are : (1) that the accused should be a public servant, (2) that he should use some corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abuse his position as a public servant, (3) that he should have obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage and (4) for himself or any other person. Therefore, to bring home an offence under S.5(1)(d), it is not necessary to prove that the acts complained of were done by the accused in the discharge of their official duties. Therefore, if it is proved that the accused had by illegal means or by otherwise abusing their position as public servants obtained for themselves money or other valuable things, then, they can be said to have committed the offence of criminal misconduct in the discharge of their official duties. 15. Therefore, if it is proved that the accused had by illegal means or by otherwise abusing their position as public servants obtained for themselves money or other valuable things, then, they can be said to have committed the offence of criminal misconduct in the discharge of their official duties. 15. In the light of above principles, it is erroneous to hold that the essence of an offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, 1988 is that the public servant must do something in connection with his own duty and thereby obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. It is also erroneous to hold that the essence of an offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, 1988 is that the public servant should do something in the discharge of his own duty and thereby obtain a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. It is necessary that an accused person, while misconducting himself, should have done in the discharge of duty and thereby obtained any pecuniary advantage. In the instant case, the appellant was posted as a Patwari in Patwari Halka No. 16 and complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1) had given him the sale-deeds for mutation. Complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1) had met the appellant for getting the mutation done. Even thereafter, the appellant did not do the mutation in the name of the father of the complainant and the complainant himself. Therefore, the statement of the complainant that the appellant demanded the sum of Rs. 1200/- from him as illegal gratification is reliable and acceptable. 16. In C. M. Sharma, v. State of A.P. Th. I.P., 2011 AIR SCW 297 : (2011 Cri LJ 975) the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed thus : 12. Further corroboration of evidence of a witness is required when his evidence is not wholly reliable. On appreciation of evidence, witnesses can be broadly categorized in three categories viz. unreliable, partly reliable and wholly reliable. In case of a partly reliable witness, the Court seeks corroboration in material particulars for other evidence. However, in a case in which a witness is wholly reliable, no corroboration is necessary. Seeking corroboration in all circumstance of the evidence of a witness forced to give bribe may lead to absurd result . unreliable, partly reliable and wholly reliable. In case of a partly reliable witness, the Court seeks corroboration in material particulars for other evidence. However, in a case in which a witness is wholly reliable, no corroboration is necessary. Seeking corroboration in all circumstance of the evidence of a witness forced to give bribe may lead to absurd result . Bribe is not taken in public view and, therefore, there may not be any person who could see the giving and taking of bribe. As in the present case, a shadow witness did accompany the contractor but the appellant did not allow him to be present in the chamber. Acceptance of this submission in abstrat will encourage the bribe taker to receive illegal gratification in privacy and then insist for corroboration in case of prosecution. Law cannot countenance such situation. In our opinion it is not necessary that the evidence of a reliable witness is necessarily to be corroborated by another witness. Not only this corroboration of the evidence of a witness can be found from the other materials on record. Here in the present case there does not seem any reason to reject the evidence of the contractor............ 15. We do not have the slightest hesitation in accepting the broad submission of Mr. Rai that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the offence under the Act. Further mere recovery of currency notes itself does not constitute the offence under the Act, unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe. In the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that both the ingredients to bring the act within the mischief of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Act are satisfied. From the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution it is evident that the appellant demanded the money from the contractor as he had passed his bills. There is further evidence that when the contractor went along with the shadow-witness on the date told by the appellant for payment of the bribe, appellant asked the shadow-witness to leave the chamber and thereafter the demand for payment of illegal gratification was made and paid. The positive sodium carbonate test vis-a-vis the fingers and right trouser™s pocket of the appellant go to show that he voluntarily accepted the bribe. The positive sodium carbonate test vis-a-vis the fingers and right trouser™s pocket of the appellant go to show that he voluntarily accepted the bribe. Thus there is evidence of demand of illegal gratification and the voluntary acceptance thereof. 17. In the instant case, it is evident that complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1) had gone to the house of the appellant. Complainant Ramsanehi Sharma (P.W. 1) gave the money to the appellant. The appellant received the tainted mony from the complainant. The complainant transmitted signal to the waiting trap-team and the trap-team, on receiving the signal, rushed the spot immediately and caught hands of the appellant. After getting fingers of the appellant washed in the solution of sodium carbonate, the test of phenolphthalein was found positive. Currency notes were also recovered at the instance of the appellant and their numbers were compared with numbers mentioned in the Pre-Trap Panchnama (Ex.P-2), which were found similar. 18. In M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., (2001) 1 SCC 691 : (2001 Cri LJ 515) the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed thus : 22. In Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana, (1974) 4 SCC 560 : (1974 Cri LJ 1062), V. R. Krishna Iyer, J. speaking for a three-Judge Bench, observed that the very fact of an Assistant Station Master being in possession of the marked currency notes against an allegation that he demanded and received that amount is res ipsa loquitur. In this context the decision of a two-Judge Bench of this Court (R. S. Sarkari and O. Chinnappa Reddy, JJ.) in Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1980) 2 SCC 390 : (1980 Cri LJ 564) can usefully be referred to. A police constable was convicted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, on the allegation that he demanded and received Rs. 60 from one Sriram who was examined as P.W. 3 in that case. In the trial Court P.W. 3 resiled from his previous statement and was declared hostile by the prosecution. The official witnesses including P.W. 8 have spoken to the prosecution version. The Court found that phenolphthalein smeared currency notes were recovered from the pocket of the police constable. 60 from one Sriram who was examined as P.W. 3 in that case. In the trial Court P.W. 3 resiled from his previous statement and was declared hostile by the prosecution. The official witnesses including P.W. 8 have spoken to the prosecution version. The Court found that phenolphthalein smeared currency notes were recovered from the pocket of the police constable. A contention was raised in the said case that in the absence of direct evidence to show that the police constable demanded or accepted bribery no presumption under Section 4 of the Act of 1947 could be drawn merely on the strength of recovery of the marked currency notes from the said police constable. Dealing with the said contention Chinnappa Reddy, J. (who spoke for the two-Judge Bench observed as follows: (SCC p. 396, para 10) It is not necessary that the passing of money should be proved by direct evidence. It may also be proved by circumstantial evidence. The events which followed in quick succession in the present case lead to the only inference that the money was obtained by the accused from P.W. 3. Under Section 114 of the Evidence Act the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case. One of the illustrations to Section 114 of the Evidence Act is that the Court may presume that a person who is in possession of the stolen goods soon after the theft, is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. So too, in the facts and circumstances of the present case the Court may presume that the accused who took out the currency notes from his pocket and flung them across the wall had obtained them from P.W. 3, who a few minutes earlier was shown to have been in possession of the notes. Once we arrive at the finding that the accused had obtained the money from P.W. 3, the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is immediately attracted. The presumption is of course rebuttable but in the present case there is no material to rebut the presumption. Once we arrive at the finding that the accused had obtained the money from P.W. 3, the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is immediately attracted. The presumption is of course rebuttable but in the present case there is no material to rebut the presumption. The accused was, therefore, rightly convicted by the Courts below. 25. We, therefore, agree with the finding of the trial Court as well as the High Court that prosecution has proved that the appellant has received gratification from P.W. 1. In such a situation the Court is under a legal compulsion to draw the legal presumption that such gratification was accepted as a reward or doing the public duty. Of course, the appellant made a serious endeavour to rebut the said presumption through two modes. One is to make P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 speak to the version of the appellant and the other is by examining two witnesses on the defence side. True P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 obliged the appellant. The two defence witnesses gave evidence to the effect that the appellant was not present at the station on the date when the alleged demand was made by P.W. 1. But the trial Court and the High Court have held their evidence unreliable and such a finding is supported by sound and formidable reasoning. The concurrent finding made by the two Courts does not require any interference by this Court. 19. In T. Shankar Prasad v. State of A.P. (2004) 3 SCC 753 : (2004 Cri LJ 884), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed thus : 8. For appreciating rival stands it would be proper to quote Section 20(1) of the Act, which in essence and substance is the same as Section 4(1) of the previous Act of 1947 and which read as follows : 4. (1) Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration. For appreciating rival stands it would be proper to quote Section 20(1) of the Act, which in essence and substance is the same as Section 4(1) of the previous Act of 1947 and which read as follows : 4. (1) Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration. (1) Where in any trial or an offence punishable under Section 161 or Section 165 of the Indian Penal Code or of an offence referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of this Act punishable under sub-section (2) thereof, it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained, or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain, for himself or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that he accepted or obtained, or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain, that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in the said Section 161, or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. 9. Before proceeding further, we may point out that the expressions may presume and shall presume are defined in Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the Evidence Act). The presumptions falling under the former category are compendiously known as factual presumptions or discretionary presumptions and those falling under the latter as legal presumptions or compulsory presumptions. When the expression shall be presumed is employed in Section 4(1) of the 1947 Act and Section 20 of the Act, it must have the same import of compulsion. 10. When the sub-section deals with legal presumption, it is to be understood as in terrorem i.e. in tone of a command that it has to be presumed that the accused accepted the gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act etc. if the condition envisaged in the former part of the section is satisfied. The only condition for drawing such a legal presumption under Section 4 of the 1947 Act is that during trial it should be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. if the condition envisaged in the former part of the section is satisfied. The only condition for drawing such a legal presumption under Section 4 of the 1947 Act is that during trial it should be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. The section does not say that the said condition should be satisfied through direct evidence. Its only requirement is that it must be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept gratification. Direct evidence is one of the modes through which a fact can be proved. But that is not the only mode envisaged in the Evidence Act. (See M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., (2001) 1 SCC 691 ). 20. In State Represented by CBI, Hyderabad v. G. Prem Raj, (2010) 1 SCC 398 : ( AIR 2010 SC 793 ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed thus : 20. At this juncture, we must also express as to how the presumption was completely ignored by the High Court. Section 20 of the Act provides : 20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration. (1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. (2) [Not relevant.] (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the Court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub-sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no inference of corruption may fairly be drawn. It was argued, though feebly, that the presumption could not be drawn as the charge in this case was under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. 21. It was argued, though feebly, that the presumption could not be drawn as the charge in this case was under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. 21. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent-accused that Section 13(1)(d) did not attract the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. What is being ignored by the learned counsel for the respondent-accused is that the charge was not only under Section 13(1)(d), but also under Section 7 of the Act. Section 7 of the Act is as under : 7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or government company referred to in clause (c) of Section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. 21. In Subbu Singh v. State by Public Prosecutor, (2009) 6 SCC 462 : (2009 Cri LJ 3433), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that once it is proved by the prosecution that the money was demanded as bribe and the same was received from P.W. 2, Section 20, PC Act comes into play. Once there is a presumption as contemplated under Section 20, it is for the appellant to establish that the amount was not received as bribe. It is to be noted that the appellant was alone in his room for sometime holding the currency notes before P.W. 26 and other officer entered into the house. Therefore, as rightly observed by the High Court, the possibility of the appellant counting the money with the help of right hand cannot be ruled out. 22. It is to be noted that the appellant was alone in his room for sometime holding the currency notes before P.W. 26 and other officer entered into the house. Therefore, as rightly observed by the High Court, the possibility of the appellant counting the money with the help of right hand cannot be ruled out. 22. In the instant case, currency notes of Rs. 700/- were recovered from the appellant and the numbers thereof were compared with the numbers mentioned in the Pre-Trap Panchnama (Ex. P-2), which were found similar. The appellant did not offer any proper and plausible explanation for the recovery of money from him. It is proved that tainted money was recovered from the appellant, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a presumption can be drawn against him that he demanded and accepted illegal gratification. In such a situation, this Court is under a legal compulsion to draw a legal presumption that such gratification was accepted as a reward for doing the public duty. 23. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the conviction of the appellant is based upon reliable and credible evidence. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment. 24. In the result, the impugned judgment is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.