2011 (5) TMI 860 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 5000/- was made by the respondent from CW 1 on 19.10.1994 for the purpose of giving pass marks to all the students who appeared in the practical examination of pharmaceutical-II in D-Pharma final examination in the year 1994? Held that - Appeal dismissed. In the absence of semblance of explanation by the investigating officer for the non-examination of the complainant, it was not open to the courts below to find out their own reason for not tendering the complainant in evidence. It has, therefore, to be held that the best evidence to prove the demand was not made available before the court. In the context of those observations, this Court made it clear that the prosecution has to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt like any other criminal offence and the accused should be considered innocent till it is proved to the contrary by proper proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which is the vital ingredient to secure the conviction in a bribery case.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against judgment and order of acquittal dated 19th January, 2005 rendered by the High Court.

Analysis:
The respondent was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by the Special Judge and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fines. The High Court examined the evidence in detail, noting the absence of examination of the complainant CW 1. The prosecution alleged illegal gratification demand for marks in an examination. The respondent's defense and witness testimonies were considered by the High Court, emphasizing the non-examination of CW 1 as crucial.

In the judgment, the High Court referenced the case of Panalal Damodar Rathi vs. State of Maharashtra, highlighting the need for corroboration of the complainant's testimony regarding the demand of bribe. The court found grave suspicion about the respondent's complicity and that the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Additionally, other legal precedents under the Prevention of Corruption Act were cited, emphasizing the importance of reliable evidence and the necessity of proving demand and acceptance of illegal gratification for conviction in bribery cases.

The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that in appeals against orders of acquittal, the innocence of the accused is re-established by the judgment of acquittal. The court emphasized the need for substantial and compelling reasons to interfere with an order of acquittal, citing established principles from previous judgments. The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it accordingly, upholding the High Court's order of acquittal.