STATE OF ASSAM versus KRISHNA RAO

STATE OF ASSAM versus KRISHNA RAO

Receipt of money by accused persons which was not legal remuneration is sufficient to raise presumption under Section 4(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The explanation by accused that money was thrust into their pockets was held unsatisfactory and unreasonable, thus presumption stands. Failure to supply copies...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: State of Assam; Respondent: Krishna Rao; Respondent: M. D. Bajid
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 September 1972
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Decision Under Article 136 of the Constitution
Outcome
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside; Special Judge's conviction and sentences restored.
Legal Topics
Prevention of Corruption Act, Presumption Under Section 4(1), Legal Remuneration Vs. Gratification
Criminal Law Anti Corruption Prevention of Corruption Act Presumption Under Section 4(1) Legal Remuneration Vs. Gratification

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Assam

Appellant

Krishna Rao

Respondent

M. D. Bajid

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Decision Under Article 136 of the Constitution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Ingredients necessary for presumption under Section 4(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act
  2. 2 Meaning of 'gratification' under Section 4(1)
  3. 3 Burden of rebutting the presumption by proof

Ratio Decidendi

Receipt of money by accused persons which was not legal remuneration is sufficient to raise presumption under Section 4(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The explanation by accused that money was thrust into their pockets was held unsatisfactory and unreasonable, thus presumption stands. Failure to supply copies of witness statements from Rao's case to Bajid was not a violation of law or prejudicial as Bajid could access and use them with court permission.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside; Special Judge's conviction and sentences restored.

Orders

  • Respondents, if on bail, must surrender to their bail bonds to serve out their sentences.