Daleep Kumar Bhat vs State Of J&K

11.

Since this is an argument which is frequently put forward in all cases of bribery, we would like to examine the scope, nature and extent of corroboration that is necessary in such cases. The word ‘accomplice’ is not defined in the Evidence Act. However, it is accepted that the word is used in its ordinary sense which means and signifies a guilty partner or associate in a crime. Illustration (b) to Section 114 in a way cautions the court to bear in mind the presumption that an accomplice is not worthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars. Section 133 of the Act, however, declares that an accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. The relation between Section 133 which is a rule of law and Illustration (b) to Section 114 which is a rule of prudence has been the subject of comment in a large number of decisions. However, it has emerged that a conviction based on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is not illegal though an accomplice may be unworthy of credit for several reasons. Reading Section 133 and Illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act together, the courts in India have held that while it is not illegal to act upon the uncorroborated testimony of the accomplice the rule of prudence so universally followed has to amount to rule of law that it is unsafe to act on the evidence of an accomplice unless it is corroborated in material aspects so as to implicate the accused. The reasons for requiring corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice are that an accomplice is likely to swear falsely in order to shift the guilt from himself and that he is an immoral person being a participator in the crime who may not have any regard to any sanction of the oath and in the case of an approver, on his own admission, he is a criminal who gives evidence under a promise of pardon and supports the prosecution with the hope of getting his own freedom.

12.

Now confining ourselves to the case of bribery it is generally accepted that the person offering a bribe to a public officer is in the nature of an accomplice in the offence of accepting illegal gratification but the nature of corroboration required in such a case should not be subjected to the same rigorous tests which are generally applied to a case of an approver. Though bribe-givers are generally treated to be in the nature of accomplices but among them there are various types and gradations. In cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act the complainant is the person who gives the bribe in a technical and legal sense because in every trap case wherever the complaint is filed there must be a person who has to give money to the accused which in fact is the bribe money which is demanded and without such a giving the trap cannot succeed. When there is such a demand by the public servant from a person who is unwilling, and if to do public good approaches the authorities and lodges a complaint, then in order that the trap succeeds he has to give the money. There could be another type of bribe-giver who is always willing to give money in order to get his work done and having got the work done he may send a complaint. Here he is a particeps criminis in respect of the crime committed and thus is an accomplice. Thus, there are grades and grades of accomplices and therefore a distinction could as well be drawn between cases where a person offers a bribe to achieve his own purpose and where one is forced to offer bribe under a threat of loss or harm that is to say under coercion. A person who falls in this category and who becomes a party for laying a trap stands on a different footing because he is only a victim of threat or coercion to which he was subjected to. Where such witnesses fall under the category of ‘accomplices’ by reason of their being bribe-givers, in the first instance, the court has to consider the degree of complicity and then look for corroboration if necessary as a rule of prudence. The extent and nature of corroboration that may be needed in a case may vary having regard to the facts and circumstances.

13.

The word ‘corroboration’ means not mere evidence tending to confirm other evidence.

In DPP v. Hester , Lord Morris said:

“The purpose of corroboration is not to give validity or credence to evidence which is deficient or suspect or incredible but only to confirm and support that which as evidence is sufficient and satisfactory and credible; and corroborative evidence will only fill its role if it itself is completely credible….”

In DPP v. Kilbourne , it was observed thus:

“There is nothing technical in the idea of corroboration. When in the ordinary affairs of life one is doubtful whether or not to believe a particular statement one naturally looks to see whether it fits in with other statements or circumstances relating to the particular matter; the better it fits in the more one is inclined to believe it. The doubted statement is corroborated to a greater or lesser extent by the other statements or circumstances with which it fits in.”

14.

In R. v. Baskerville , which is a leading case on this aspect, Lord Reading said:

“There is no doubt that the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice is admissible in law.… But it has long been a rule of practice at common law for the judge to warn the jury of the danger of convicting a prisoner on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice or accomplices, and, in the discretion of the judge, to advise them not to convict upon such evidence; but the judge should point out to the jury that it is within their legal province to convict upon such unconfirmed evidence…. This rule of practice has become virtually equivalent to a rule of law, and since the Court of Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, came into operation this Court has held that, in the absence of such a warning by the judge, the conviction must be quashed…. If after the proper caution by the judge the jury nevertheless convicts the prisoner, this Court will not quash the conviction merely upon the ground that the testimony of the accomplice was uncorroborated.”

15.

In Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, Bose, J., after referring to the rule laid down in Baskerville case with regard to the admissibility of the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, held thus:

“That, in my opinion, is exactly the law in India so far as accomplices are concerned and it is certainly not any higher in the case of sexual offences. The only clarification necessary for purposes of this country is where this class of offence is sometimes tried by a judge without the aid of a jury. In these cases it is necessary that the judge should give some indication in his judgment that he has had this rule of caution in mind and should proceed to give reasons for considering it unnecessary to require corroboration on the facts of the particular case before him and show why he considers it safe to convict without corroboration in that particular case.”

Justice Bose in the same judgment further observed thus:

“I turn next to the nature and extent of the corroboration required when it is not considered safe to dispense with it. Here, again, the rules are lucidly expounded by Lord Reading in Baskerville case at pages 664 to 669. It would be impossible, indeed it would be dangerous, to formulate the kind of evidence which should, or would, be regarded as corroboration. Its nature and extent must necessarily vary with circumstances of each case and also according to the particular circumstances of the offence charged. But to this extent the rules are clear.

First, it is not necessary that there should be independent confirmation of every material circumstance in the sense that the independent evidence in the case, apart from the testimony of the complainant or the accomplice, should in itself be sufficient to sustain conviction. As Lord Reading says —

‘Indeed, if it were required that the accomplice should be confirmed in every detail of the crime, his evidence would not be essential to the case, it would be merely confirmatory of other and independent testimony.’

All that is required is that there must be

‘some additional evidence rendering it probable that the story of the accomplice (or complainant) is true and that it is reasonably safe to act upon it’.

Secondly, the independent evidence must not only make it safe to believe that the crime was committed but must in some way reasonably connect or tend to connect the accused with it by confirming in some material particular the testimony of the accomplice or complainant that the accused committed the crime. This does not mean that the corroboration as to identity must extend to all the circumstances necessary to identify the accused with the offence. Again, all that is necessary is that there should be independent evidence which will make it reasonably safe to believe the witness's story that the accused was the one, or among those, who committed the offence. The reason for this part of the rule is that —

‘a man who has been guilty of a crime himself will always be able to relate the facts of the case, and if the confirmation be only on the truth of that history, without identifying the persons, that is really no corroboration at all…. It would not at all tend to show that the party accused participated in it.’

Thirdly, the corroboration must come from independent sources and thus ordinarily the testimony of one accomplice would not be sufficient to corroborate that of another. But of course the circumstances may be such as to make it safe to dispense with the necessity of corroboration and in those special circumstances a conviction so based would not be illegal. I say this because it was contended that the mother in this case was not an independent source.

Fourthly, the corroboration need not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime. It is sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence of his connection with the crime. Were it otherwise, ‘many crimes which are usually committed between accomplices in secret, such as incest, offences with females’ (or unnatural offences) ‘could never be brought to justice’. ”

16.

We shall now refer to some of the judgments wherein the rule of corroboration has been considered in respect of the bribery cases. In Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh there are observations to the effect that the evidence of the trap witnesses cannot be taken on its face value thereby indicating that their evidence cannot be relied upon without independent corroboration. In State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh a Bench of five Judges considered this “corroboration requirement” and after referring to the observations made in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh case explained them in the following manner:

“If the witnesses are not accomplices, what then is their position? In Shiv Bahadur Singh case (A) it was observed, with regard to Nagindas and Pannalal, that they were partisan witnesses who were out to entrap the appellant in that case, and it was further observed: ‘A perusal of the evidence … leaves in the mind the impression that they were not witnesses whose evidence could be taken as its face value.’ We have taken the observations quoted above from a full report of the decision, as the authorised report does not contain the discussion with regard to evidence. It is thus clear that the decision did not lay down any universal or inflexible rule of rejection even with regard to the evidence of witnesses who may be called partisan or interested witnesses. It is plain and obvious that no such rule can be laid down; for the value of the testimony of a witness depends on diverse factors, such as, the character of the witness, to what extent and in what manner he is interested, how he has fared in cross-examination etc. There is no doubt that the testimony of partisan or interested witnesses must be scrutinised with care and there may be cases, as in Shiv Bahadur Singh case (A), where the Court will as a matter of prudence look for independent corroboration. It is wrong, however, to deduce from that decision any universal or inflexible rule that the evidence of the witnesses of the raiding party must be discarded, unless independent corroboration is available.”

This Court in the above case concluded thus:

“The correct rule is this: if any of the witnesses are accomplices who are particeps criminis in respect of the actual crime charged, their evidence must be treated as the evidence of accomplices is treated; if they are not accomplices but are partisan or interested witnesses, who are concerned in the success of the trap, their evidence must be tested in the same way as other interested evidence is tested by the application of diverse considerations which must vary from case to case, and in proper case, the Court may even look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person.”

It was further concluded thus:

“As was observed by Lord Reading in Baskerville (C) even in respect of the evidence of an accomplice, all that is required is that there must be ‘some additional evidence rendering it probable that the story of the accomplice is true and that it is reasonably safe to act upon it’. In Rameshwar at p. 385 (B), to which we have referred in an earlier paragraph, the nature and extent of corroboration required, when it is not considered safe to dispense with it, have been clearly explained and it is merely necessary to reiterate that corroboration need not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime; it is sufficient even though it is merely circumstantial evidence of his connection with the crime.”

“Now coming back to the contention that the appellants could not have been convicted solely on the basis of the evidence of Ramanlal and the police witnesses, we are of opinion that it is an untenable contention. The utmost that can be said against Ramanlal, the Dy SP, Erulker and Santramji is that they are partisan witnesses as they were interested in the success of the trap laid by them. It cannot be said — and it was not said — that they were accomplices. Therefore, the law does not require that their evidence should be corroborated before being accepted as sufficient to found a conviction. This position is placed beyond controversy by the decision of this Court in State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh wherein this Court laid down, overruling the decision in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh that where the witnesses are not accomplices but are merely partisan or interested witnesses who are concerned in the success of the trap, their evidence must be tested in the same way as any other interested evidence is tested and in a proper case, the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person. We are unable to agree that any different rule was laid down in E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay. It must be remembered that the decision in Basawan Singh case was given by a Bench of five Judges and that decision was binding on the Bench that decided Barsay case . Some of the observations in Barsay case no doubt support the contention of the appellants. But those observations must be confined to the peculiar facts of that case. It is now well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that while in the case of evidence of an accomplice, no conviction can be based on his evidence unless it is corroborated in material particulars but as regards the evidence of a partisan witness it is open to a court to convict an accused person solely on the basis of that evidence, if it is satisfied that that evidence is reliable. But it may in appropriate case look for corroboration. In the instant case, the trial court and the High Court have fully accepted the evidence of Ramanlal, the Dy SP, Erulker and Santramji. That being so, it was open to them to convict the appellants solely on the basis of their evidence. That apart, their evidence is substantially corroborated by the evidence of Dahyabhai, Sanghvi and Sendhalal. In the case of partisan witnesses, the corroboration that may be looked for is corroboration in a general way and not material corroboration as in the case of the evidence of accomplices.”

18.

In Dalpat Singh v. State of Rajasthan , this Court after referring to Basawan Singh case observed thus:

“We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that PWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 17 and other prosecution witnesses to whose evidence we shall presently refer, should be considered as accomplices and therefore their evidence is required to be corroborated in material particulars before being accepted. On the proved facts, even those who gave illegal gratification to the appellants cannot be considered as accomplices as the same was extorted from them. Though PWs 1, 2, 4 and 17 can be considered as interested witnesses as regards their evidence relating to trap, as a matter of law, it is not correct to say that their evidence cannot be accepted without corroboration. See State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh .”

19.

In Maha Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) this Court held thus: (SCC p. 652, paras 33 and 34)

“This also leads to the question whether all witnesses, who are called upon to assist detection of a bribery case by laying a trap, should be considered unreliable as accomplices or at any rate partisan witnesses. There is no rule of law that even if a witness is otherwise reliable and independent, his association in a pre-arranged raid about which he had become acquainted makes him an accomplice or a partisan witness. In absence of anything to warrant a contrary conclusion, conviction is not untenable merely because it is based on the testimony of such a witness.

We are also not prepared to dub every witness of a raiding party to be an accomplice per se or even as an interested witness in total absence of materials justifying such an inference. While PW 4 will be a highly partisan witness in this case in his own interest to oblige the police, nothing was shown against PW 3. PW 7, the Inspector, cannot be considered as an absolutely partisan witness because he is a police officer who took immediate action on the complaint. Nothing unusual is suggested against him. We have no hesitation in accepting the testimony of PWs 3 and 7 on their own. They do corroborate the complainant.”

20.

In Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi Admn.) , Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking for the Bench while repelling the contention that the evidence of trap witness namely the police officer should not be accepted unless corroborated observed thus: (SCC p. 395, para 9)

“We, however, wish to say that the evidence of PW 8 is entirely trustworthy and there is no need to seek any corroboration. We are not prepared to accept the submission of Shri Frank Anthony that he is the very police officer who laid the trap should be sufficient for us to insist upon corroboration. We do wish to say that there is no rule of prudence which has crystallized into a rule of law, nor indeed any rule of prudence, which requires that the evidence of such officers should be treated on the same footing as evidence of accomplices and there should be insistence on corroboration. In the facts and circumstances of a particular case a court may be disinclined to act upon the evidence of such an officer without corroboration, but, equally, in the facts and circumstances of another case the Court may unhesitatingly accept the evidence of such an officer. It is all a matter of appreciation of evidence and on such matters there can be no hard and fast rule, nor can there be any precedential guidance. We are forced to say this because of late we have come across several judgments of Courts of Session and sometimes even of High Courts where reference is made to decisions of this Court on matters of appreciation of evidence and decisions of pure question of fact.”

21.

From the above resume of various decisions, the following principles are deducible. Section 133 of the Evidence Act lays down that an accomplice is a competent witness against an accused person. The conviction based on such evidence is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. However, there is a rider in Illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Act which provides that the court may presume that the accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars. This presumption is in the nature of a precautionary provision incorporating the rule of prudence which is ingrained in the appreciation of accomplice's evidence. Therefore, the courts should be guarded before accepting the accomplice's evidence and look for corroborating evidence. The discretion of the court upon which the rule of corroboration rests must be exercised in a sound and reasonable manner. Normally the courts may not act on an uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice but whether in a particular case it has to be accepted without corroboration or not would depend on an overall consideration of the accomplice's evidence and the facts and circumstances. However, if on being so satisfied the court considers that the sole testimony of the accomplice is safe to be acted upon, the conviction can be based thereon. Even if corroboration as a matter of prudence is needed it is not for curing any defect in the testimony of the accomplice or to give validity to it but it is only in the nature of supporting evidence making the other evidence more probable to enable the court to satisfy itself to act upon it.

22.

Now coming to the witnesses in trap cases, as held in Basawan Singh case by a Bench of five Judges, if any of the witnesses are accomplices who are particeps criminis in respect of the actual crime charge, their evidence must be treated as the evidence of accomplices is treated; if they are not accomplices in that sense but are only partisan or interested witnesses who are concerned in the success of the trap, their evidence must be tested in the same way as other interested evidence is tested which may vary from case to case and the corroboration in the case of such interested witnesses can be in a general way and not as one required in material particulars as in the case of an approver. Therefore, in seeking corroboration for the evidence of trap witnesses a distinction has to be drawn where participation of an individual in a crime is not voluntary but is the result of pressure. In such a case the element of mens rea to commit the crime is not apparent and (sic) cannot strictly be classified as an accomplice and at any rate he cannot be treated as being on the same footing. Where a bribe has already been demanded from a man and if without giving the bribe he goes to the police or magistrate and brings them to witness the payment it will be a legitimate trap and in such cases at the most he can be treated as an interested witness and whether corroboration is necessary or not will be within the discretion of the court depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, as a rule of prudence, the court has to scrutinise the evidence of such interested witnesses carefully.

23.

Now coming to the nature of corroborating evidence that is required, it is well-settled that the corroborating evidence can be even by way of circumstantial evidence. No general rule can be laid down with respect to quantum of evidence corroborating the testimony of a trap witness which again would depend upon its own facts and circumstances like the nature of the crime, the character of trap witness etc. and other general requirements necessary to sustain the conviction in that case. The court should weigh the evidence and then see whether corroboration is necessary. Therefore, as a rule of law, it cannot be laid down that the evidence of every complainant in a bribery case should be corroborated in all material particulars and otherwise it cannot be acted upon. Whether corroboration is necessary and if so to what extent and what should be its nature depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In a case of bribe, the person who pays the bribe and those who act as intermediaries are the only persons who can ordinarily be expected to give evidence about the bribe and it is not possible to get absolutely independent evidence about the payment of bribe. However, it is cautioned that the evidence of a bribe-giver has to be scrutinised very carefully and it is for the court to consider and appreciate the evidence in a proper manner and decide the question whether a conviction can be based upon it or not in those given circumstances.”

“The corroboration essential in a case like this for what actually transpired at the time of the alleged occurrence and acceptance of bribe is very much wanting in this case. Even the other panch witness, PW 5 categorically admitted that even as the Inspector of Police, PW 6 arrived, the appellant gave the same version that PW 1 tried to force into her hands the currency note which she turned down by pushing it away, and his evidence also does not lend credibility to the case of the prosecution. The contradictory version of PW 1 of the very incident when earlier examined in departmental proceedings renders his testimony in this case untrustworthy. PW 3, the Head Copyist, seems to be the brain behind all this and that PW 1 as well as Jagdish Bokade appear to be working as a group in this affair and despite the blunt denial by PW 3, his closeness to PW 1 and Jagdish Bokade stands well substantiated. All these relevant aspects of the case seem to have been completely overlooked by the courts below."

We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Rai. The word accomplice has not been defined under the Evidence Act and therefore presumed to have been used in the ordinary sense. A person concerned in the commission of crime, a partner in crime and associate in guilt is an accomplice. He takes part in the crime and is privy to the criminal intent. In our opinion a witness forced to pay on promise of doing or forbearing to do any official act by a public servant, is not a partner in crime and associate in guilt and therefore cannot be said to be accomplice. It has long been rule of practice, which has become equivalent to rule of law, that the evidence of an accomplice is admissible but to be acted upon, ordinarily requires corroboration. Contractor who gave bribe, therefore, cannot be said to an accomplice as the same was extorted from him. Reference in this connection can be made to a decision of this Court in the case of Dalpat Singh and another v. State of Rajasthan, (AIR 1969 SC 17), in which it has been held as follows:

"We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that PWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 17 and other prosecution witnesses to whose evidence we shall presently refer, should be considered as accomplices and therefore their evidence is required to be corroborated in material particulars before being accepted. On the proved facts, even those who gave illegal gratification to the appellants cannot be considered as accomplices as the same was extorted from them. Though PWs 1, 2, 4 and 17 can be considered as interested witnesses as regards their evidence relating to trap, as a matter of law, it is not correct to say that their evidence cannot be accepted without corroboration, see State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh 1959 SCR 195 : (AIR 1958 SC 500) (underlining ours).

“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 from 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 abstract 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 PW.1, M. Venka Reddy. His evidence is further corroborated by the evidence of the shadow-witness PW.2, G.T. Kumar. The shadow-witness has stated in his evidence that when he entered in the chamber, appellant was asked by the Inspector as to whether he had received any amount from the contractor, he denied and then removed the currency notes 14 from his trouser's pocket and threw the same. He had further stated that sodium carbonate test was conducted in which the solution turned pink when the appellant's fingers and the right side trouser's pocket were rinsed. From the aforesaid one can safely infer that the evidence of the contractor is corroborated in material particulars by the shadow-witness.

(a)

Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

(b)

In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.

(c)

Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.

(d)

In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:

(i)

if there is an offer to pay by the bribe-giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.

(ii)

On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe-giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

(iii)

In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe-giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii), respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe-giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe-giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

(e)

The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.

(f)

In the event the complainant turns “hostile”, or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.

(g)

Inso far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

(h)

We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in sub-para 88.5(e), above, as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.