2014 (8) TMI 1044 - SC - Customs

Order of acquittal - conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Held that - The prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant from the complainant PW- 2, upon whose evidence much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent. We, accordingly answer the point in favour of the appellant that exercise of appellate jurisdiction by the High Court to reverse the judgment and order of acquittal is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we answer the point in favour of the appellant. For the foregoing reasons, we have to restore the judgment and order of acquittal of the trial court by setting aside the impugned judgment of HC

Issues Involved:
1. Demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification.
2. Reversal of acquittal by the High Court.
3. Presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Comprehensive, Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Demand, Acceptance, and Recovery of Illegal Gratification:
The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with a colleague, demanded a bribe of Rs. 2 lakhs from the complainant and that the appellant reiterated this demand over the phone. The complainant arranged Rs. 60,000, which was delivered to the appellant's residence. A raid was conducted, and the appellant was arrested. However, the trial court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, leading to the appellant's acquittal.

The High Court reversed this acquittal, convicting the appellant under Section 7 of the Act. The appellant contended that the demand was made by P.S. Saini, who was neither accused nor examined as a witness. The recovery memo was also disputed as it was not properly proved. The appellant argued that the demand and acceptance of the bribe were not proven, and mere recovery of money does not constitute acceptance of illegal gratification.

2. Reversal of Acquittal by the High Court:
The appellant argued that the High Court erroneously re-appreciated the evidence and reversed the trial court's acquittal without compelling reasons. The trial court had found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe. The High Court, however, relied on the testimony of PW-3 and other corroborative evidence to conclude that the demand and acceptance were proven. The appellant contended that the High Court did not adhere to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court for reversing an acquittal, which requires compelling reasons and a presumption of innocence.

3. Presumption of Guilt Under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act:
The appellant argued that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act could only be invoked if the prosecution proved the foundational facts of demand and acceptance of the bribe. Since these were not proven, the presumption did not arise. The High Court held that once demand and acceptance were proven, the presumption under Section 20 arose, shifting the burden to the appellant to rebut it.

Judgment Analysis:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by not adhering to the legal principles for reversing an acquittal. The evidence did not conclusively prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe. The trial court's findings were based on a proper appreciation of evidence, including the fact that the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and not corroborated by independent witnesses. The letter written by the complainant to the Customs Department, stating that the appellant did not demand or accept money, further supported the appellant's innocence.

The Supreme Court emphasized that mere recovery of money is not sufficient to prove the charge of illegal gratification without evidence of demand and acceptance. The prosecution failed to establish these foundational facts, and therefore, the presumption under Section 20 did not arise.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the trial court's acquittal. The appellant's bail bonds were discharged. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to established legal principles when reversing an acquittal and the necessity of proving both demand and acceptance of a bribe to invoke the presumption of guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

← Previous Next →