2009 (5) TMI 912 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether there is sufficient legal evidence on record to bring home the guilt of the appellant for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2)?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
3. Reliability of witness testimonies.
4. Presumption under Section 20 of the Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fines. The High Court of Kerala upheld this conviction and sentence.

2. Evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification:
The prosecution's case centered on the appellant, a Lower Division Clerk, demanding Rs. 25 from Manaf for delivering a driving license in book form. Manaf reported this to the Vigilance Unit, leading to a trap where phenolphthalein powder was applied to currency notes. The trap party, including independent witnesses and a constable, proceeded to the appellant's office. Upon receiving a signal from Manaf, the trap party recovered the currency notes from the appellant's shirt pocket, which tested positive for phenolphthalein.

3. Reliability of witness testimonies:
The complainant, Manaf, was not examined during the trial, and the investigating officer (PW-12) did not explain his absence. The court noted that without Manaf's testimony, there was no substantive evidence to prove the demand for the bribe. The prosecution did not rely on the testimonies of other witnesses present during the raid (PW-3 to PW-8) or the panch witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2). PW-10's testimony, which suggested the complainant offered money to the appellant, was deemed insufficient to establish the demand. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 was also found unreliable, with PW-1 being declared hostile and PW-2 suffering from health issues affecting his memory.

4. Presumption under Section 20 of the Act:
The High Court drew a presumption under Section 20 of the Act, assuming the appellant accepted illegal gratification. However, the Supreme Court noted that this presumption should not be drawn if the gratification is trivial. In this case, the alleged demand was only Rs. 25, which the Court deemed too trivial to infer corruption. Therefore, the High Court's reliance on this presumption was unjustified.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence lacked quality and credibility, making it unsafe to convict the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and any fines paid were ordered to be refunded. The appellant's bail bonds were also canceled.