2013 (8) TMI 460 - SC - Indian Laws

Demand of corruption money - During raid, Respondent was found with money as illegal gratification - High court acquitted Respondent - Held that - Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. Hence, the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the Act 1988, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the Act 1988 - While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness. Respondent-accused took a plea that he only had the duty to serve the notice on the complainant with regard to the tax evasion done by him and was not the authority for making an assessment order. It was his official duty to serve upon the complainant a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The complainant came to his house and asked the respondent-accused to give him a glass of water as he had to take the medicine. He went inside the kitchen and came back with a glass of water and thereafter shook hands with the complainant and that is why when the hands of the respondent were washed, they turned pink. Reasoning given by the High Court does not deserve to be accepted for the reason that even if the complainant had a criminal background, he can still be forced by the officer of the Income Tax Department to pay illegal gratification for not reopening the assessment of a particular year. The subsequent cases against the respondent-accused for having disproportionate assets cannot be corelated with the incident of trap case. The incident in which the respondent had been arrested for taking illegal gratification has to be examined on its own merit. The courts below have not taken note of the statement made by PW.2 who is an Executive Magistrate and must be treated to be the most reliable and independent person and admittedly, he had been associated with the trap party. It is evident that in case the complainant himself had gone to PW.12 for having a trap on 1.6.1994, the question of receiving a direction from the Deputy Commissioner on 31.5.1994 could not arise. PW.2 is a witness only of recovery and not of accepting the bribe money. This statement alone made it evident that the prosecution has not disclosed the genesis of the case correctly - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against judgment convicting under Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand of illegal gratification - Recovery of tainted money - Appeal against acquittal - Parameters of interference against order of acquittal - Burden of proof on accused - Examination of case in light of settled legal propositions.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the judgment convicting the respondent under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding illegal gratification. The case involved the respondent, an Income Tax Inspector, threatening the complainant with reopening assessment orders unless paid a bribe. The complainant arranged a trap with marked money, leading to the recovery of the amount from the respondent. The Trial Court convicted the respondent, but the High Court acquitted him based on various factors, including the complainant's criminal background and the defense's explanation of the tainted money recovery. The appellant argued for reversing the acquittal, emphasizing the cogency of evidence supporting the prosecution's case.

The legal proposition highlighted the necessity of proving demand of illegal gratification for convicting under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Mere recovery of money is not enough without evidence of bribe payment or voluntary acceptance as a bribe. The burden rests on the accused to disprove the statutory presumption raised by the Act. The court must consider the accused's explanation based on preponderance of probability, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant, as an interested witness, requires corroboration, and the court may seek independent evidence before convicting the accused.

The High Court's reasoning for acquitting the respondent was based on doubts regarding the complainant's credibility and subsequent developments involving the respondent. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that the complainant's background did not justify illegal gratification demands. The court highlighted discrepancies in the prosecution's case, including contradictions in witness statements. The Executive Magistrate's testimony raised doubts about the prosecution's version, indicating a lack of clarity in disclosing the case's genesis. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to acquit the respondent, finding no compelling reason to interfere.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's acquittal of the respondent. The judgment underscored the importance of proving demand for illegal gratification and the burden on the accused to rebut statutory presumptions. The court's decision emphasized the need for corroborative evidence and highlighted discrepancies in the prosecution's case that led to the acquittal.