2015 (9) TMI 1666 - SC - Indian Laws

Illegal gratification - offences both under 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - HELD THAT - In the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be proved. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality and of permeating mandate for an offence Under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. Qua Section 20 of the Act, which permits a presumption as envisaged therein, it has been held that while it is extendable only to an offence Under Section 7 and not to those Under Section 13(1)(d) (i) (ii) of the Act, it is contingent as well on the proof of acceptance of illegal gratification for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Such proof of acceptance of illegal gratification, it was emphasized, could follow only if there was proof of demand. Axiomatically, it was held that in absence of proof of demand, such legal presumption Under Section 20 of the Act would also not arise. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act - As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence Under Sections 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder. The materials on record when judged on the touch stone of the legal principles adumbrated hereinabove, leave no manner of doubt that the prosecution, in the instant case, has failed to prove unequivocally, the demand of illegal gratification and, thus, we are constrained to hold that it would be wholly un-safe to sustain the conviction of the Appellant Under Section 13(1)(d)(i) (ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Act as well - impugned judgment and order of the High Court is hereby set-aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Acquittal under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Proof of demand for illegal gratification.
4. Recovery of tainted currency notes.
5. Legal standards for proof in corruption cases.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
The appellant was convicted by the trial court under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count, along with a fine of Rs. 1000. The High Court upheld this conviction but set aside the conviction under Section 7 of the Act.

2. Acquittal under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
The High Court acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 7 of the Act. The prosecution's failure to prove the demand for illegal gratification was a key factor in this acquittal.

3. Proof of Demand for Illegal Gratification:
The appellant's senior counsel argued that the prosecution failed to prove the demand for illegal gratification, which is an essential element for conviction under both Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. The counsel cited the Supreme Court's decision in B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, emphasizing that mere recovery of tainted notes without proof of demand is insufficient for conviction.

The prosecution's case hinged on the testimony of PW1-S. Udaya Bhaskar, who accompanied the complainant during the trap operation. However, the Supreme Court found that even if Bhaskar's testimony was accepted at face value, it did not conclusively prove the demand for illegal gratification. The complainant, who had initially reported the demand, died before the trial, leaving a gap in direct evidence.

4. Recovery of Tainted Currency Notes:
The prosecution presented evidence of the recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant. However, the Supreme Court reiterated that mere recovery is insufficient to prove the charge without corroborative evidence of demand. The trap operation and chemical tests on the tainted notes were not enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

5. Legal Standards for Proof in Corruption Cases:
The Supreme Court emphasized the need for proof of demand for illegal gratification as a "sine qua non" for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. Citing precedents like A. Subair v. State of Kerala and State of Kerala v. C.P. Rao, the Court reiterated that suspicion, however grave, cannot replace proof. The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and any ambiguity should benefit the accused.

The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the demand for illegal gratification unequivocally. Therefore, sustaining the appellant's conviction under Section 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Act would be unsafe and legally impermissible.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and acquitted the appellant of all charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, due to the prosecution's failure to prove the essential element of demand for illegal gratification. The appellant's bail bond was discharged, and the original records were ordered to be sent back immediately.