{"id":235496,"date":"2000-12-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-12-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-narsinga-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-december-2000"},"modified":"2017-01-01T09:06:54","modified_gmt":"2017-01-01T03:36:54","slug":"n-narsinga-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-december-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-narsinga-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-december-2000","title":{"rendered":"N. Narsinga Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 December, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
N. Narsinga Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 December, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: Thomas<\/div>\n
Bench: U.C.Banerjee, R.P.Sethi<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.) 719 1995\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nN.  NARSINGA RAO\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t12\/12\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nU.C.Banerjee, R.P.Sethi\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J<\/p>\n
      J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
      THOMAS, J.\n<\/p>\n
      Can  a  legal  presumption  be   based  on  a  factual
\npresumption?  The latter is discretionary whereas the former
\nis  compulsory.\t Such a question arose in this appeal and in
\nview  of  the importance of the issue a two-Judge Bench\t has
\nreferred this case to be heard by a larger bench.  The legal
\npresumption  envisaged\tin Section 20 of the  Prevention  of
\nCorruption  Act 1988 (for short the Act) is that on  proof
\nof  certain  fact  the court shall presume  certain  other
\nfact.  When there is no direct evidence for establishing the
\nprimary\t fact  the court has to depend upon the\t process  of
\ninference  drawn from other facts to reach the said  primary
\nfact.\tThe  crux  of the question involved,  therefore,  is
\nwhether\t an  inference thus made could be used as a  premise
\nfor  the  compulsory presumption envisaged in Section 20  of
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
      The  aforesaid  question\tarose\tfrom  the  following
\nassortment  of\tfacts.\t Appellant  was manager\t of  a\tMilk@@
\nJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
\nChilling Centre attached to Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development
\nCo-operative  Federation.   He is alleged to  have  received
\nbribe  money of Rs.500\/- from a milk-transporting contractor
\n(PW1-Satya  Prasad).  He was caught red handed on  20.4.1989
\nin  a trap arranged by the officials of the Anti  Corruption
\nBureau\t(ACB).\t They  charge-sheeted him before  a  Special
\nCourt  for  offences  under Sections 7 and 13(2)  read\twith
\nSection\t 13(1)(d) of the Act.  After trial the Special Judge
\nconvicted him and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for
\ntwo  years  and a fine of Rs.2000\/- under each of the  above
\ncounts.\t  The  High  Court of Andhra Pradesh  confirmed\t the
\nconviction  but\t reduced the sentence of imprisonment  to  a
\nperiod of one year.  This appeal is in challenge of the said
\nconviction and sentence.\n<\/p>\n
      A\t  summary  of  the   allegations  made\tagainst\t the
\nappellant  are\tthess:\t PW1-Satya Prasad was  to  get\tsome
\namount from Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation for
\ntransporting  milk  to or from the Milk Chilling  Centre  at
\nLuxettipet (Adilabad district).\t He approached the appellant
\nfor taking prompt steps so as to enable him to get the money
\ndisbursed.   But appellant demanded Rs.500\/- for sending the
\nrecommendation\tin  favour of payment of the amount  due  to
\nPW1.  As the appellant persisted with his demand PW1 yielded
\nto  the\t same,\tbut  before handing over the  money  to\t the
\nappellant  PW1\tlodged a complaint (Ex.P2) with the  DSP  of
\nAnti  Corruption Bureau.  On the basis of the said complaint
\nPW7   (DSP)  registered\t Ex.P18\t FIR   and  then  made\t all
\narrangements  for a trap to catch the corrupt public servant
\nred handed.\n<\/p>\n
      On  24.4.1984  PW1 brought the currency notes  to\t the
\noffice\tof the ACB for making up the demanded bribe  amount.
\nThe  said  currency notes were treated with  phenolphthalein
\npowder\tby or at the direction of PW7 as preparation for the
\ntrap.\tPW1  and the already arranged witness  PW2  together
\nwent  to  the  house of the appellant by about\tnoon.\tWhen
\nappellant  asked  whether the amount was brought PW1  handed
\nover  the  phenolphthalein  smeared currency  notes  to\t the
\nappellant.   He\t accepted  the amount and put  the  currency
\nnotes  in his pocket.  Thereupon, a pre-scheduled signal was
\ntransmitted  to the members of the ACB team who were waiting
\noutside.   They\t suddenly  rushed  to the  place  where\t the
\nappellant was then standing, caught the appellant red-handed
\nand  the  tainted  currency notes were\trecovered  from\t his
\npocket.\t  All  the  usual follow up  steps  were  thereafter
\nadopted\t  by  the  ACB\tteam   and  on\tcompletion  of\t the
\ninvestigation  the  case  was charge-  sheeted\tagainst\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
      It took four years thereafter for the Special Judge to
\ncommence evidence taking for the prosecution.  The said long
\ninterval, perhaps, helped the appellant as is reflected from
\nthe  fact  that PW1 and PW2 made a volte-face in  the  trial
\ncourt  and  they  denied  having paid  any  bribery  to\t the
\nappellant  and also denied that appellant demanded the bribe
\namount.\t  PW1 said, for the first time, that he acted at the
\nbehest of one Dr.  Krishna Rao and went to the office of the
\nappellant and did everything as directed by the said Krishna
\nRao.  Both the witnesses were declared hostile by the Public
\nProsecutor  and\t both were cross-examined in detail.   After
\nexamining  the\tremaining  witnesses   for  prosecution\t the
\nappellant  was\tcalled upon to answer questions put  to\t him
\nunder  Section\t313 of the Code of Criminal  Procedure\t(for
\nshort the Code).  He then submitted a written statement in
\nwhich  he said that Dr.\t Krishna Rao bore grudge against him
\nand  that person orchestrated this false trap against him by
\nemploying  PW1\tand  PW2.  According to the  appellant,\t the
\ntainted\t currency  notes  were\tforcibly  stuffed  into\t his
\npocket.\t  He examined two witnesses on the defence side\t and
\nboth  of them said that on the dates when the alleged demand
\nwas  made  by  the appellant he was on tour at\ta  different
\nplace.\n<\/p>\n
      Both  the\t trial court and the High Court\t disbelieved
\nthe defence evidence in toto and found that PW1 and PW2 were
\nwon  over  by  the  appellant and that is  why\tthey  turned
\nagainst\t their\town  version recorded by  the  investigating
\nofficer\t and subsequently by a magistrate under Section\t 164
\nof  the Code.  The Special Judge ordered those two witnesses
\nto  be prosecuted for perjury and the said course  suggested
\nby the trial judge found approval from the High Court also.\n<\/p>\n
      In the appeal the High Court dealt with the contention
\nthat  it is not possible to draw any presumption against the
\ndelinquent  public servant in the absence of direct evidence
\nto  show  that the public servant demanded bribery and\tthat
\nthe  same was paid to him.  Learned single judge of the High
\nCourt  observed thus on that aspect:  It is true that there
\nis no direct evidence in this case that the accused demanded
\nand  accepted  the money.  But the rest of the evidence\t and
\nthe  circumstances  are\t sufficient to\testablish  that\t the
\naccused\t had  accepted the amount and that gives rise  to  a
\npresumption under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption
\nAct  that  he  accepted the same as  illegal  gratification,
\nparticularly  so  when the defence theory put forth  is\t not
\naccepted.\n<\/p>\n
      Mr.   L.\t Nageswara  Rao,  learned  counsel  for\t the
\nappellant,  adopted  a twin contention.\t First is  that\t the@@
\nJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
\npresumption  under Section 20 of the Act could be drawn only
\nwhen  the prosecution succeeded in establishing with  direct
\nevidence  that\tthe  delinquent public servant\taccepted  or
\nobtained  gratification.   That premise cannot depend on  an
\ninference for affording foundation for the legal presumption
\nenvisaged in Section 20 of the Act, according to the learned
\ncounsel.   The\tsecond limb of his contention is that it  is
\nnot  enough that some currency notes were handed over to the
\npublic\tservant\t to  make it  acceptance  of  gratification.
\nProsecution  has a further duty to prove that what was\tpaid
\namounted to gratification, contended the counsel.\n<\/p>\n
      In  support  of the first contention, learned  counsel
\nrelied on the decision of a two judge bench of this court in
\nSita Ram vs.  State of Rajasthan<\/a> {1975 (2) SCC 227}.  It was
\nheld  by  the bench that on mere recovery of certain  money
\nfrom  the  person  of an accused without the  proof  of\t its
\npayment\t by  or\t on behalf of some person to  whom  official
\nfavour was to be shown the presumption cannot arise.\n<\/p>\n
      The  said observation was made in the background of  a
\nfinding\t made  by  the\tHigh Court in  that  case  that\t the
\nevidence  of the witnesses was not reliable and particularly
\nbecause\t so many jerks and jolts seem to have been given to
\nthe prosecution case by contradictory and hostile statements
\nof  the witnesses that a good part of it had to be  rejected
\nby  the High Court. That decision and the observation could
\nthus  confine  to  the\tfacts of that  case,  and  no  legal
\nprinciple   for\t future\t application   could  be   discerned
\ntherefrom.\n<\/p>\n
      Learned  counsel then relied on another decision of  a
\ntwo judge bench of this court in Suraj Mal vs.\tState (Delhi
\nAdministration)<\/a>\t {1979\t(2)  SCC   725}\t wherein  the  bench
\nobserved  that\tin  our\t opinion, mere\trecovery  of  money
\ndivorced  from\tthe circumstances under which it is paid  is
\nnot  sufficient to convict the accused when the\t substantive
\nevidence in the case is not reliable. In that case also the
\nsaid  finding depended upon the veracity of the testimony of
\nthe  witnesses.\t  But the contention raised by\tthe  learned
\ncounsel\t in  this case on the point convassed by him  cannot
\nfind any support from the said decision either.\n<\/p>\n
      While adverting to the first contention of the learned
\ncounsel\t we  may reproduce Section 20(1) of the Act.   [That
\nsub-  section  is virtually the same as Section 4(1) of\t the
\npredecessor  Act of 1947].  20(1) Presumption where  public
\nservant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration.\n<\/p>\n
-(1)  Where,  in  any trial of an offence  punishable  under
\nsection\t 7  or\tsection 11 or clause (a) or  clause  (b)  of
\nsub-section  (1) of section 13 it is proved that an  accused
\nperson\thas accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept  or
\nattempted  to  obtain for himself, or for any other  person,
\nany  gratification  (other than legal remuneration)  or\t any
\nvaluable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless
\nthe  contrary  is  proved, that he accepted or\tobtained  or
\nagreed\tto accept or attempted to obtain that  gratification
\nor  that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive  or
\nreward such as is mentioned in section 7 or, as the case may
\nbe,  without  consideration or for a consideration which  he
\nknows  to be inadequate. Before proceeding further, we\tmay
\npoint  out  that  the expressions may presume  and  shall
\npresume\t are defined in Section 4 of the Evidence Act.\tThe
\npresumptions   falling\tunder  the   former   category\t are
\ncompendiously\tknown\tas     factual\t presumptions\tor
\ndiscretionary  presumptions  and those falling\tunder  the
\nlatter as legal presumptions or compulsory presumptions.
\nWhen  the  expression  shall be presumed  is  employed\tin
\nSection\t 20(1)\tof the Act it must have the same  import  of
\ncompulsion.\n<\/p>\n
      When  the sub-section deals with legal presumption  it
\nis  to\tbe  understood\tas in terrorum i.e.  in\t tone  of  a
\ncommand that it has to be presumed that the accused accepted
\nthe  gratification  as\ta  motive or  reward  for  doing  or
\nforbearing  to\tdo any official act etc., if  the  condition
\nenvisaged  in  the former part of the section is  satisfied.
\nThe  only  condition  for drawing such a  legal\t presumption
\nunder  Section\t20 is that during trial it should be  proved
\nthat  the  accused  has\t accepted or agreed  to\t accept\t any
\ngratification.\t The  section  does not say  that  the\tsaid
\ncondition  should be satisfied through direct evidence.\t Its
\nonly  requirement is that it must be proved that the accused
\nhas  accepted  or  agreed to accept  gratification.   Direct
\nevidence  is  one of the modes through which a fact  can  be
\nproved.\t  But  that  is not the only mode envisaged  in\t the
\nEvidence  Act.\t The word proof need be understood in  the
\nsense  in  which it is defined in the Evidence\tAct  because
\nproof depends upon the admissibility of evidence.  A fact is
\nsaid to be proved when, after considering the matters before
\nit,  the court either believes it to exist, or consider\t its
\nexistence  so  probable that a prudent man ought, under\t the
\ncircumstances  of  the\tparticular  case, to  act  upon\t the
\nsupposition  that  it exists.  This is the definition  given
\nfor the word proved in the Evidence Act.  What is required
\nis  production\tof  such materials on which  the  court\t can
\nreasonably  act to reach the supposition that a fact exists.
\nProof  of the fact depends upon the degree of probability of
\nits  having existed.  The standard required for reaching the
\nsupposition is that of a prudent man acting in any important
\nmatter\tconcerning  him.  Fletcher Moulton L.J.\t in  Hawkins
\nvs.   Powells  Tillery Steam Coal Company, Ltd.\t  [1911\t (1)
\nK.B.   988] observed like this:\t Proof does not mean  proof
\nto  rigid  mathematical\t demonstration,\t  because  that\t  is
\nimpossible;   it  must mean such evidence as would induce  a
\nreasonable man to come to a particular conclusion”.\n<\/p>\n
      The  said\t observation has stood the test of time\t and@@
\n      IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
\ncan  now be followed as the standard of proof.\tIn  reaching
\nthe  conclusion the court can use the process of  inferences
\nto  be drawn from facts produced or proved.  Such inferences
\nare  akin  to  presumptions  in\t law.\tLaw  gives  absolute
\ndiscretion to the court to presume the existence of any fact
\nwhich  it  thinks likely to have happened.  In that  process
\nthe  court  may\t have  regard to common\t course\t of  natural
\nevents,\t human conduct, public or private business vis-\u00e0-vis
\nthe facts of the particular case.  The discretion is clearly
\nenvisaged  in Section 114 of the Evidence Act.\t Presumption
\nis  an\tinference of a certain fact drawn from other  proved
\nfacts.\t While\tinferring  the\texistence  of  a  fact\tfrom
\nanother, the court is only applying a process of intelligent
\nreasoning  which  the mind of a prudent man would  do  under
\nsimilar\t circumstances.\t  Presumption  is   not\t the   final
\nconclusion  to\tbe drawn from other facts.  But it could  as
\nwell  be final if it remains undisturbed later.\t Presumption
\nin  Law\t of  Evidence  is a rule  indicating  the  stage  of
\nshifting  the burden of proof.\tFrom a certain fact or facts
\nthe  court can draw an inference and that would remain until
\nsuch  inference\t is either disproved or dispelled.  For\t the
\npurpose\t of reaching one conclusion the court can rely on  a
\nfactual presumption.  Unless the presumption is disproved or
\ndispelled  or rebutted, the court can treat the\t presumption
\nas  tantamounting  to  proof.\tHowever,  as  a\t caution  of
\nprudence  we  have to observe that it may be unsafe  to\t use
\nthat   presumption  to\tdraw   yet   another   discretionary
\npresumption  unless  there is a statutory compulsion.\tThis
\nCourt has indicated so in Suresh Budharmal Kalani vs.  State
\nof  Maharashtra<\/a>\t [1998 (7) SCC 337].  A presumption can\t be
\ndrawn only from facts – and not from other presumptions\t by
\na  process of probable and logical reasoning.  Illustration\n<\/p>\n
(a)  to Section 114 of the Evidence Act says that the  court
\nmay  presume that a man who is in the possession of  stolen
\ngoods  soon  after  the\t theft is either the  thief  or\t has
\nreceived  the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can
\naccount\t  for  his  possession.\t  That\t illustration\tcan
\nprofitably  be\tused  in the present context  as  well\twhen
\nprosecution  brought  reliable\tmaterials  that\t appellants
\npocket\tcontained phenolphthalein smeared currency notes for
\nRs.500\/-  when\the  was\t searched by PW-7 DSP  of  the\tAnti
\nCorruption  Bureau.   That  by itself may not  or  need\t not
\nnecessarily  lead  to  a presumption that he  accepted\tthat
\namount\tfrom somebody else because there is a possibility of
\nsomebody  else either stuffing those currency notes into his
\npocket\tor  stealthily inserting the same therein.  But\t the
\nother  circumstances which have been proved in this case and
\nthose  preceding  and  succeeding the searching out  of\t the
\ntainted\t currency notes, are relevant and useful to help the
\ncourt  to  draw\t a factual presumption\tthat  appellant\t had
\nwillingly received the currency notes.\n<\/p>\n
      PW-7 DSP said that PW-1 approached him on the previous
\nday  and lodged Ext.P-2 complaint stating that appellant was
\npersistently  demanding\t Rs.500\/-  from him.   The  currency
\nnotes  were actually prepared by PW-7 by smearing them\twith
\nphenolphthalein\t powder.   When\t appellant  was\t caught\t red
\nhanded\twith those currency notes he never demurred to\tPW-7
\nthat  those  notes were not received by him.  In  fact,\t the
\nstory  that such currency notes were stuffed into his pocket
\nwas  concocted by the appellant only after lapse of a period
\nof  4  years and that too when appellant faced the trial  in
\nthe   court.   From  those  proved   facts  the\t court\t can
\nlegitimately  draw a presumption that appellant received  or
\naccepted  the  said currency notes on his own volition.\t  Of
\ncourse,\t the  said presumption is not an inviolable one,  as
\nthe    appellant    could    rebut    it   either    through
\ncross-examination  of the witnesses cited against him or  by
\nadducing  reliable evidence.  But if the appellant fails  to
\ndisprove  the  presumption the same would stick and then  it
\ncan  be\t held by the court that the prosecution\t has  proved
\nthat appellant received the said a mount.  In Raghubir Singh
\nvs.  State of Haryana<\/a> [1974 (4) SCC 560] V.R.  Krishna Iyer,
\nJ,  speaking for a three Judge Bench, observed that the very
\nfact  of an Assistant Station Master being in possession  of
\nthe  marked  currency  notes against an allegation  that  he
\ndemanded  and  received that amount is res ipsa\t loquitur.
\nIn  this  context the decision of a two Judge Bench of\tthis
\nCourt (R.S.  Sarkaria and O.  Chinnappa Reddy, JJ) in Hazari
\nLal vs.\t Delhi (Delhi Administration)<\/a> [1980 (2) SCC 390] can
\nusefully  be referred to.  A police constable was  convicted
\nunder  Section\t5(2)  of the Prevention of  Corruption\tAct,
\n1947,  on  the\tallegation  that he  demanded  and  received
\nRs.60\/-\t from  one Sriram who was examined as PW-3  in\tthat
\ncase.\tIn  the trial court PW-3 resiled from  his  previous
\nstatement  and was declared hostile by the prosecution.\t The
\nofficial  witnesses  including\tPW-8   have  spoken  to\t the
\nprosecution  version.  The court found that  phenolphthalein
\nsmeared currency notes were recovered from the pocket of the
\npolice\tconstable.  A contention was raised in the said case
\nthat  in  the  absence of direct evidence to show  that\t the
\npolice constable demanded or accepted bribery no presumption
\nunder  Section 4 of the Act of 1947 could be drawn merely on
\nthe  strength of recovery of the marked currency notes\tfrom
\nthe said police constable.  Dealing with the said contention
\nChinnappa  Reddy,  J.  (who spoke for the two  Judge  Bench)
\nobserved  as follows:  It is not necessary that the passing
\nof  money should be proved by direct evidence.\tIt may\talso
\nbe  proved  by\tcircumstantial evidence.  The  events  which
\nfollowed in quick succession in the present case lead to the
\nonly  inference\t that the money was obtained by the  accused
\nfrom  PW3.  Under Section 114 of the Evidence Act the  court
\nmay presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely
\nto  have happened, regard being had to the common course  of
\nnatural\t events,  human\t conduct   and\tpublic\tand  private
\nbusiness, in their relation to facts of the particular case.
\nOne  of the illustrations to Section 114 of the Evidence Act
\nis  that  the  court  may presume that a person\t who  is  in
\npossession  of\tthe  stolen goods soon after the  theft,  is
\neither\tthe chief or has received the goods knowing them  to
\nbe  stolen,  unless he can account for his  possession.\t  So
\ntoo, in the f acts and circumstances of the present case the
\ncourt may presume that the accused who took out the currency
\nnotes  from  his pocket and flung them across the  wall\t had
\nobtained  them from PW3, who a few minutes earlier was shown
\nto  have been in possession of the notes.  Once we arrive at
\nthe  finding  that the accused had obtained the\t money\tfrom
\nPW3, the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of
\nCorruption Act is immediately attracted.  The presumption is
\nof  course  rebuttable but in the present case there  is  no
\nmaterial  to  rebut  the   presumption.\t  The  accused\twas,
\ntherefore,  rightly  convicted\tby the\tcourts\tbelow.\tThe
\naforesaid  observation\tis  in consonance with the  line  of
\napproach  which we have adopted now.  We may say with  great
\nrespect\t to  the learned Judges of the two Judge Bench\tthat
\nthe  legal  principle  on  this aspect\thas  been  correctly
\npropounded therein.\n<\/p>\n
      Regarding\t the second limb of the contention  advanced
\nby  Shri  Nageshwar Rao, learned counsel for  the  appellant
\n(that  it  was\tnot gratification which\t the  appellant\t has
\nreceived)  we  think  it is not necessary to deal  with\t the
\nmatter in detail because in a recent decision rendered by us
\nthe  said  aspect  has\tbeen dealt with\t at  length.   [Vide
\nMadhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi vs.  State of Maharashtra, JT<\/a> 2000
\n(supple.2)  SC 458].  The following statement made by us  in
\nthe  said  decision  would be the answer  to  the  aforesaid
\ncontention  raised by the learned counsel:  The premise\t to
\nbe  established on the facts for drawing the presumption  is
\nthat there was payment or acceptance of gratification.\tOnce
\nthe said premise is established the inference to be drawn is
\nthat  the  said\t gratification was accepted  as\t motive\t or
\nreward\tfor doing or forbearing to do any official act.\t So
\nthe  word  gratification  need not be  stretched  to  mean
\nreward\tbecause\t reward\t is the outcome of  the\t presumption
\nwhich  the  court  has to draw on the factual  premise\tthat
\nthere  was  payment  of gratification.\tThis will  again  be
\nfortified  by looking at the collocation of two\t expressions
\nadjacent  to each other like gratification or any  valuable
\nthing. If acceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw
\nthe presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for
\nthe  official act, the word gratification must be  treated
\nin  the context to mean any payment for giving\tsatisfaction
\nto the public servant who received it.\n<\/p>\n
      We,  therefore,  agree with the finding of  the  trial
\ncourt  as well as the High Court that prosecution has proved
\nthat appellant has received gratification from PW1.  In such
\na  situation  the court is under a legal compulsion to\tdraw
\nthe  legal presumption that such gratification was  accepted
\nas  a  reward  for doing the public duty.   Of\tcourse,\t the
\nappellant  made\t a  serious  endeavour\tto  rebut  the\tsaid
\npresumption  through two modes.\t One is to make PW1 and\t PW2
\nspeak  to  the version of the appellant and the other is  by
\nexamining  two witnesses on the defence side.  True PW1\t and
\nPW2  obliged the appellant.  The two defence witnesses\tgave
\nevidence to the effect that the appellant was not present at
\nthe  station on the date when the alleged demand was made by
\nPW1.  But the trial court and the High Court have held their
\nevidence unreliable and such a finding is supported by sound
\nand  formidable\t reasoning.  The concurrent finding made  by
\nthe  two  courts does not require any interference  by\tthis
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
      In the result we dismiss this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
       [ K.T.  Thomas ]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India N. Narsinga Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 December, 2000 Author: Thomas Bench: U.C.Banerjee, R.P.Sethi CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 719 1995 PETITIONER: N. NARSINGA RAO Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/12\/2000 BENCH: U.C.Banerjee, R.P.Sethi JUDGMENT: L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J J U D G M E N T THOMAS, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-235496","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nN. Narsinga Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-narsinga-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-december-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N. Narsinga Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-narsinga-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-december-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-01T03:36:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-narsinga-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-december-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-narsinga-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-december-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N. Narsinga Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 December, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-01T03:36:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-narsinga-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-december-2000\"},\"wordCount\":3683,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-narsinga-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-december-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-narsinga-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-december-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-narsinga-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-december-2000\",\"name\":\"N. Narsinga Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-01T03:36:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-narsinga-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-december-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-narsinga-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-december-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-narsinga-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-december-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N. Narsinga Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 December, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"N. Narsinga Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-narsinga-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-december-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N. Narsinga Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-narsinga-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-december-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-01T03:36:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-narsinga-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-december-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-narsinga-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-december-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N. Narsinga Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 December, 2000","datePublished":"2000-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-01T03:36:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-narsinga-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-december-2000"},"wordCount":3683,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-narsinga-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-december-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-narsinga-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-december-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-narsinga-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-december-2000","name":"N. Narsinga Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-01T03:36:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-narsinga-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-december-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-narsinga-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-december-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-narsinga-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-december-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N. Narsinga Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 December, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235496","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=235496"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235496\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=235496"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=235496"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=235496"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}