9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (1) TMI 550 - SC - Indian LawsJudgment of the Madras High Court convicting him under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 challenged Held that - The High Court did not consider the explanation offered by the appellant for the receipt of the money nor the previous enmity harboured by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 towards the appellant. Nor did it hold that the decision of the trial court was erroneous or perverse. The evidence throws out a clear alternative that the accused was falsely implicated at the instance of PWs.1, 2 and 6. If two views were possible from the very same evidence, it cannot be said that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had received the sum of ₹ 200/- as illegal gratification. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the trial court was right in holding that the charge against the appellant was not proved and the High Court was not justified in interfering with the same. Allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and restore the order of the trial court, acquitting the appellant of the charge.
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 2. Alleged demand and acceptance of a bribe by the appellant. 3. Prosecution's evidence and the appellant's defense. 4. High Court's reversal of the Special Judge's acquittal. 5. Evaluation of the evidence and the explanation provided by the appellant. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Conviction under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947: The appellant was convicted by the Madras High Court under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The High Court reversed the Special Judge's decision, which had acquitted the appellant. 2. Alleged demand and acceptance of a bribe by the appellant: The prosecution alleged that the appellant, working as the Executive Officer of a temple, demanded a bribe of Rs.450 from PW-1 to help secure a patta for temple land. The demand was later reduced to Rs.300, and PW-1 paid Rs.100 initially and the remaining Rs.200 later. The appellant's defense was that the amount was received as lease rent arrears on behalf of PW-6. 3. Prosecution's evidence and the appellant's defense: The prosecution presented 13 witnesses and marked several exhibits. The defense argued that the complaint and subsequent trap were acts of vengeance by PW-1, PW-2, and PW-6 due to previous enmity. The Special Judge found the appellant's explanation reasonable and acquitted him, stating that the prosecution failed to prove the demand, delivery, and acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt. 4. High Court's reversal of the Special Judge's acquittal: The High Court held that the prosecution had proven the receipt of Rs.200 as illegal gratification for granting patta. It rejected the appellant's defense that the amount was lease rent arrears, relying on PW-6's denial of sending any money through PW-1. Consequently, the High Court convicted the appellant but took a lenient view in sentencing due to his age and personal circumstances. 5. Evaluation of the evidence and the explanation provided by the appellant: The Supreme Court emphasized that mere receipt of money is insufficient to establish guilt under the Act without evidence of demand and acceptance as illegal gratification. The Court cited precedents indicating that an accused's explanation, if reasonable and probable, must be considered. The evidence showed previous enmity between the appellant and the prosecution witnesses, raising doubts about the bribe allegation. The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not adequately consider the appellant's explanation or the trial court's reasoning. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court was correct in acquitting the appellant, as the prosecution did not prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court's interference was deemed unjustified. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the trial court's acquittal was restored.
|
