2016 (4) TMI 1285 - SC - Indian Laws

Setting aside the order of acquittal - High Court held the appellant-accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - establish the guilt of the accused - legality of evaluation of the evidence and the findings recorded by the trial court Held that - In order to constitute an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, proof of demand is a sine quo non. In the present case, trial court recorded an order of acquittal on the evidence and circumstances -(i) delay in lodging the complaint; (ii) even though the appellant is alleged to have made the demand on 09.12.1997 at Chitradurga, absence of the appellant in Chitradurga from 07.12.1997 to 10.12.1997 and absence of proof of demand; (iii) doubts raised regarding the submission of the documents Ex. P6 to P15 by PW-1 for processing the pension papers and settling the retiral benefits and (iv) inconsistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in establishing the acceptance of the amount by the appellant. Absence of proof of demand on 09.12.1997, coupled with PW-2 s evidence that the amount was paid by PW-1 to the appellant towards purchase of diesel raises serious doubts about the amount being paid by PW-1 as illegal gratification. High Court neither considered the defence plea of alibi nor it held that the decision of the trial court was erroneous or perverse. In our view, evaluation of the evidence made by the trial court while recording an order of acquittal does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality or manifest error and the grounds on which the order of acquittal is based cannot be said to be unreasonable. While so, High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of acquittal and the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. In the result, appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the order of trial court acquitting the appellant of the charges is restored. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Sanction Order.
2. Proof of Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification.
3. Evaluation of Evidence and Findings by the Trial Court.
4. High Court's Interference with the Trial Court's Acquittal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Sanction Order:
The trial court held that the sanction order (Ex.P31) lacked validity as it did not reference the authority or documents used to grant the sanction for prosecution. The High Court, however, found the sanction valid, stating that PW-8, the Under Secretary, was executing the government's decision. The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's view but chose not to delve further into the sanction issue as the prosecution failed to establish demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

2. Proof of Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification:
The prosecution's case hinged on proving the demand and acceptance of ?5,000 as illegal gratification by the appellant. The Supreme Court emphasized that proof of demand is a sine qua non for constituting an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant's plea of alibi was supported by evidence from PWs 4, 5, and 7, indicating his presence in Bangalore from 07.12.1997 to 10.12.1997. The trial court found the prosecution failed to prove the demand on 09.12.1997, a finding supported by the Supreme Court.

3. Evaluation of Evidence and Findings by the Trial Court:
The trial court's acquittal was based on several grounds:
- Delay in lodging the complaint.
- Absence of the appellant in Chitradurga from 07.12.1997 to 10.12.1997.
- Doubts regarding the submission of documents (Ex. P6 to P15) for processing pension papers.
- Inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' testimonies regarding the acceptance of the amount.

The Supreme Court found these grounds reasonable and plausible, affirming the trial court's view that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe.

4. High Court's Interference with the Trial Court's Acquittal:
The Supreme Court reiterated that mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to convict the accused without proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The High Court's judgment was found lacking as it did not adequately address the defence plea of alibi or the trial court's findings. The Supreme Court emphasized the principle that if the trial court's view is reasonable, the appellate court should not interfere with the acquittal.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the trial court's order of acquittal. The appellant's bail bonds were discharged.