1975 (8) TMI 131 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under s. 5(2) read with s. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. Conviction under s. 161, Penal Code.
3. Presumption under s. 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
4. Abetment of an offence under s. 161, Penal Code and s. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Summary:

1. Conviction under s. 5(2) read with s. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act:
The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge, Delhi, and the conviction was upheld by the High Court of Delhi. The appellant was accused of soliciting and accepting a bribe of Rs. 100/- on behalf of Inspector Gupta for expediting the installation of an electric connection. The appellant, a permanent labourer, claimed he was merely following Gupta's instructions and was unaware that the money was a bribe.

2. Conviction under s. 161, Penal Code:
The appellant was charged with accepting illegal gratification as a motive or reward for doing an official act. The courts below convicted the appellant based on the presumption u/s 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which the appellant failed to rebut. However, the Supreme Court found that the appellant was acting as an innocent carrier for Gupta and was not in a position to show any favor to the complainant.

3. Presumption under s. 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act:
The presumption u/s 4(1) is rebuttable, and the accused can disprove it by showing a preponderance of probability in his favor. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant's conduct was consistent with that of an innocent carrier, and the prosecution's evidence did not establish that the appellant had the requisite mens rea to accept the bribe.

4. Abetment of an offence under s. 161, Penal Code and s. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act:
The Supreme Court held that the appellant could not be guilty of abetment as the principal accused, Gupta, was acquitted. The appellant lacked the intention to aid the commission of the crime, and his actions were not indicative of a guilty mind.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant's conviction was set aside, and he was acquitted of all charges. The appeal was allowed.