Gurjant Singh v. State of Punjab
Background
The appellant, a Technical Assistant with the Food Corporation of India, allegedly demanded Rs. 1 lakh (later reduced to Rs. 50,000) as illegal gratification from a rice millers' association president in exchange for approving rice supplied by local shellers. The complainant reported this to the Vigilance Department, which laid a trap using chemically-treated currency notes, and the appellant was caught red-handed accepting the money at a rice mill in Kotkapura, Punjab, in 2003. The trial court convicted him under Sections 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprisonment plus a fine, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld this conviction on appeal.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court reviewed the trap evidence, the complainant's and shadow witness's corroborated testimony, the recovery of the tainted currency from the appellant's pocket, and the chemical (sodium carbonate) test confirming contact with the treated notes, and found no reason to disturb the conviction, applying the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act that money recovered from an accused's possession raises a presumption of guilt unless rebutted. The Court held the appellant's defence evidence insufficient to rebut this presumption and affirmed the conviction. However, noting that the minimum sentence under the Act was increased by a 2014 amendment that did not apply to this 2003 incident, the Court reduced the sentence from three years to two years' rigorous imprisonment while leaving the fine of Rs. 1 lakh unchanged.
Lesson Learnt
Once bribe money is recovered from a public servant's possession during a lawfully conducted trap, the law presumes guilt under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the accused bears the burden of rebutting that presumption with credible evidence: simply denying the allegation is not enough.