2017 (7) TMI 1307 - SC - Indian Laws

Bribe - demand of illegal gratification - Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - HELD THAT - On an overall appreciation of evidence on record, in the context of the elucidation of law pertaining to proof of the ingredients of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act as adverted to herein-above, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge levelled against the original accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The charge against him therefore fails. The Trial Court as well as the High Court had failed to analyse the factual and legal aspects as involved in their true perspectives and resultantly the determinations made are not sustainable - the impugned judgment and order of the High Court affirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court is set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Adequacy of evidence regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
3. Validity of the trap operation and related procedures.
4. Credibility of the prosecution witnesses and their testimonies.
5. Allegations of false implication by the original accused.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
The appellant challenged the conviction of the original accused under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act. The original accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fines for allegedly demanding and receiving bribes. The Supreme Court scrutinized whether the essential elements of these sections, particularly the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, were adequately proven by the prosecution.

2. Adequacy of Evidence Regarding Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification:
The prosecution's case was based on the allegation that the original accused, while investigating a case, demanded and received bribes from the complainant. The complainant's testimony, supported by a trap operation, was central to the prosecution's argument. However, the Supreme Court found the evidence insufficient. The complainant's statements lacked specific details, and the alleged demand and payment of ?3,000/- were uncorroborated. The mere query by the accused about whether the money had been brought was deemed inadequate to constitute a demand for illegal gratification.

3. Validity of the Trap Operation and Related Procedures:
The trap operation involved smearing currency notes with phenolphthalein powder and setting up a trap team. Despite these measures, the Supreme Court found inconsistencies in the testimonies regarding the location of the transaction and the handling of the currency notes. The unusual placement of the money in a cardboard box, rather than being kept securely by the accused, further cast doubt on the prosecution's version of events.

4. Credibility of the Prosecution Witnesses and Their Testimonies:
The testimonies of key witnesses, including the complainant and the shadow witness, were scrutinized. The complainant's failure to produce a crucial witness (Santosh Singh Lamberdar) and the inconsistencies in the witnesses' accounts weakened the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court noted that the evidence was inadequate to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond a reasonable doubt.

5. Allegations of False Implication by the Original Accused:
The original accused claimed he was falsely implicated at the behest of a superior officer, Superintendent of Police Mukhwinder Singh Cheena, who allegedly pressured him regarding the investigation. Although the accused could not provide concrete evidence to support this claim, the Supreme Court acknowledged the possibility of false implication, considering the superior officer's position and the lack of direct evidence against the accused.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the original accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence was found to be inadequate and inconsistent, failing to meet the legal standards required under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The judgment emphasized the indispensability of proving both the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to sustain a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

← Previous Next →