G NAGARAJAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is directed against the order dated 14. 3. 2006 made in O. A. No. 791 of 2005 on the file of the third respondent dismissing the said O. A. and refusing to stay the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum dated 1. 9. 2005, till the conclusion of the criminal case pending against the petitioner in C. C. No. 3 of 2005 on the file of principal Special Judge for CBI cases, for the offence punishable under Section 120-B, IPC read with Section 7, 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the "pc Act" ).

(2.) 1. In brief, the petitioner was working as superintendent, Customs, Tirupur, on deputation by the Central Excise department. A trap was decided to be laid on the petitioner on 5. 7. 2004 based on a complaint lodged by one Selvaraj. The conversation between the said selvaraj and the petitioner reveals that the petitioner demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 25,000/- from Selvaraj for clearing export consignment made under shipping bill bearing serial No. 14624 dated 26. 6. 2004. Accordingly, the trap was executed and the petitioner was trapped. A criminal case was initiated in C. C. No. 3 of 2005 for the offences referred to above. 2. 2. Pending the above criminal case, the first respondent also initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner for having committed a gross misconduct and for the failure to discharge the duties of a public servant on 5. 7. 2004 in connection with the clearance of export consignment, in contravention of Rule 3 (1) (i) (ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct)Rules, 1964.

(3.) 1. In this regard, it is apt to refer Section 20 (1) of the PC Act, which reads as follows: "section 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. " 5. 2. When Section 20 (1) 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 20 is that during trial it should be proved that the accused had accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. The section does not say that the said condition should be satisfied through direct evidence, vide M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A. P. ( (2001) 1 SCC 691 ). 5. 3. The only condition for drawing legal presumption under Section 20 is that during trial it should be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. But the section does not say that the said condition should be satisfied only by direct evidence. When money was recovered from the pocket of one of the accused persons, a presumption under Section 20 of the Act is obligatory, vide T. Shankar Prasad v. State of a. P. ( (2004) 3 SCC 753 ). 5. 4. When the expression "shall be presumed" is employed in Section 20 (1) of the Act, it must have the same import of compulsion. Therefore, the same has 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 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, vide State of A. P. v. C. Uma Maheswara Rao ( (2004) 4 SCC 399 ). 5. 5. In view of the above settled proposition, the question of prejudice caused to the petitioner due to the disclosure of the defence, as rightly held by the Tribunal, would not arise. Therefore, in complete agreement with the reasons that weighed the Tribunal and finding no merits in the writ petition, the same is dismissed. WPMP No. 13381 of 2006 is also dismissed. .