2012 (5) TMI 603 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether there was demand of bribe and acceptance of the same? Whether it would not be at all appropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to reduce the sentence on the ground of the so-called mitigating factors as that would tantamount to supplanting statutory mandate and further it would amount to ignoring the substantive statutory provision that prescribes minimum sentence for a criminal act relating to demand and acceptance of bribe?

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and sentencing under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Demand and acceptance of bribe.
3. Presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
4. Adequacy of evidence and credibility of witnesses.
5. Exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution for sentence reduction.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction and Sentencing under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
The appellants were convicted by the Additional Special Judge, Bhavnagar, for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fines. This conviction was upheld by the High Court of Gujarat. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and found no reason to interfere with the conviction, affirming that the appellants were guilty as charged.

2. Demand and Acceptance of Bribe:
The prosecution's case was based on the complainant's testimony and the evidence gathered during the anti-corruption raid. The complainant alleged that the appellants demanded a bribe for providing property documents. The Supreme Court emphasized that mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient for conviction unless there is evidence of demand and acceptance of the bribe. The Court found that the evidence, including the complainant's testimony and the corroboration by panch witnesses, established the demand and acceptance of the bribe.

3. Presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act:
The Court highlighted the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act, which presumes that the public servant accepted the gratification unless rebutted by the accused. The appellants failed to provide any credible evidence to rebut this presumption. The Court cited previous judgments to reinforce that the presumption is a rebuttable one and must be considered in light of the entire evidence presented.

4. Adequacy of Evidence and Credibility of Witnesses:
The appellants argued that the prosecution's evidence was inadequate and that the witnesses were not credible. The Supreme Court dismissed these arguments, noting that the testimonies of the complainant and panch witnesses were consistent and credible. The Court also pointed out that the presence of anthracene powder on the appellants' hands and the recovery of the tainted money further corroborated the prosecution's case.

5. Exercise of Powers under Article 142 of the Constitution for Sentence Reduction:
The appellants requested a reduction in their sentence, citing mitigating factors such as the small amount involved and the passage of time since the offence. The Supreme Court refused to exercise its powers under Article 142 to reduce the sentence, stating that doing so would undermine the statutory mandate and the legislative intent to impose minimum sentences for corruption offences. The Court emphasized that corruption at any level should not be met with leniency, as it corrodes the nation's integrity and economy.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the conviction and sentences imposed by the lower courts. The Court underscored the importance of upholding the statutory provisions designed to combat corruption and reiterated that the presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act must be effectively rebutted by the accused, which was not done in this case. The request for sentence reduction was denied, reinforcing the principle that corruption must be met with strict penalties to deter such conduct.

← Previous Next →