The Order of the Court was as follows :
1. After hearing both sides we are not inclined to disturb the finding of the High Court that the defence adopted by the respondent (that the amount paid to him by P.W. 1 was in repayment of a hand loan advanced earlier) cannot be dubbed as improbable. At the same time we do not approve of a proposition of law propounded by the High Court that in such cases the initial burden is on the prosecution to prove that the amount was not paid by returning the hand loan. It is well settled that when the amount is found to have been passed to the public servant the burden is on the public servant to establish that it is not by way of illegal gratification.
2. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.
State Of Andhra Pradesh v. Kommaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy
State Of Andhra Pradesh v. Kommaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy
(Supreme Court Of India)
Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 1996 | 26-07-2000
Advocate List
Bench
- HON'BLE JUSTICE K. T. THOMAS
- HON'BLE JUSTICE R. P. SETHI
Eq Citations
- (2001) SCC CRI 1481
- (2000) 9 SCC 752
- LQ/SC/2000/1084
Head Note
Public Accountability, Vigilance and Prevention of Corruption — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — S. 161 — Recovery of amount by public servant from contractor — Held, when amount is found to have been passed to public servant, burden is on public servant to establish that it is not by way of illegal gratification (Para 1)
