2004 (1) TMI 680 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 7, 11, and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the Act ) and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the IPC ) valid?

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Sections 7, 11, and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Conviction under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Reliability of the complainant's testimony (PW-1).
4. Applicability of statutory presumption under Section 7 read with Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
5. Role and involvement of the accused T. Shankar Prasad (A1) and Ghaiz Basha (A2).
6. Validity of the defense arguments regarding the absence of direct evidence and the nature of the money received.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Sections 7, 11, and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
The appellants were convicted under these sections for demanding and accepting a bribe. The trial court found both accused guilty and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment and fines. The High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence. The Supreme Court noted that the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Act is obligatory when money is recovered from the accused, and this presumption was not effectively rebutted by the defense.

2. Conviction under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:
The appellants were initially charged with conspiracy under Section 120B IPC. However, they were acquitted of this charge. The Supreme Court referenced the case of Madan Lal v. The State of Punjab, which established that an acquittal under conspiracy charges does not preclude conviction for the substantive offense if the evidence supports it.

3. Reliability of the complainant's testimony (PW-1):
The complainant (PW-1) partially resiled from his earlier statement during the trial, attempting to shield A2. Despite this, the trial court and the Supreme Court found his testimony credible in parts, especially when corroborated by other witnesses. The Court emphasized that even if a witness is cross-examined by the party calling him, his entire testimony is not necessarily discredited.

4. Applicability of statutory presumption under Section 7 read with Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act:
The Supreme Court highlighted that once it is proved that an accused has accepted gratification, a legal presumption arises under Section 4(1) of the Act. This presumption is mandatory and shifts the burden to the accused to disprove it. The Court cited several precedents, including Raghubir Singh v. State of Punjab and Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi Admn.), to support this principle.

5. Role and involvement of the accused T. Shankar Prasad (A1) and Ghaiz Basha (A2):
A1 was found to have directed the complainant to pay the bribe to A2. The evidence showed that A2 accepted the money, which was corroborated by the positive sodium carbonate test. The defense's argument that the money was for advance tax was rejected as the records indicated no tax was due. The Court concluded that both accused were involved in a systematic scheme to collect bribes.

6. Validity of the defense arguments regarding the absence of direct evidence and the nature of the money received:
The defense argued that since the complainant did not fully support the prosecution and no money was recovered from A1, the conviction was unwarranted. The Supreme Court dismissed these arguments, noting that circumstantial evidence and the corroborative testimonies of other witnesses were sufficient. The Court also rejected the defense's claim that the money was for advance tax, finding it inconsistent with the official records.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, finding no merit in the appeals. The convictions under the Prevention of Corruption Act were affirmed based on the evidence and the statutory presumptions. The appeals were dismissed, reinforcing the legal principles regarding the burden of proof and the credibility of witness testimony in corruption cases.

← Previous Next →