2014 (3) TMI 1104 - SC - Indian Laws

Guilty of commission of the offence under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d)(i)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - accused appellant sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for each of the offence and also to pay a fine of ₹ 1000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months more - complainant approached the accused appellant for release of essential commodities against his shop for the month of November, 1995 and the accused appellant demanded a bribe of ₹ 250/- to issue the release order - Held that - In so far as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case in so far as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint (Exbt.P-11) before LW-9, and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW-1 and the contents of Exhibit P-11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7 In so far as the presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent. Thus we cannot sustain the conviction of the appellant either under Section 7 or under 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.

Summary

Issues:
Conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against a judgment affirming the conviction of the accused under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused, a Mandal Revenue Officer, was found guilty of demanding a bribe of Rs. 250 for releasing essential commodities. The prosecution's case relied on witness testimonies and evidence from a trap operation conducted by the police. The accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The accused pleaded not guilty, claiming that the currency notes were given to him for depositing in the bank as a fee. During the trial, witness testimonies conflicted, with the complainant disowning the initial complaint but a panch witness confirming the demand for a bribe.

The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence presented in the case. It emphasized that for the offence under Section 7, the demand of illegal gratification is essential, and mere recovery of currency notes is not sufficient unless it is proven that the accused accepted the money as a bribe knowingly. The Court cited previous judgments to support this legal principle. In this case, the complainant did not support the prosecution's claim of demand by the accused. No other witness confirmed the demand, and the evidence was insufficient to prove the accused's guilt. The Court highlighted that possession and recovery of currency alone do not establish the offence under Section 7.

Regarding the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, the Court clarified that it applies only to the offence under Section 7 and not to other sections. The presumption of acceptance of illegal gratification can only be drawn if there is proof of demand, which was lacking in this case. As a result, the Court concluded that the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) could not be sustained due to insufficient evidence. The conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court and the High Court were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.