SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- K.T. Thomas and R.P. Sethi, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 1996. D/d. 26.7.2000.

State of A.P. - Appellant

Versus

Kommaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy - Respondent

Evidence Act, 1872, Section 101 and 106 - Prevention of Corruption act, 1947, Sections 4 and 5(1)(d) - Illegal gratification - Burden of proof - Not to disturb the finding of the High Court that the defence adopted by the respondent cannot be dubbed as improbable - 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.

[Para 1]

ORDER

K.T. Thomas, J. - 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 PW 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.

.