2015 (3) TMI 1383 - SC - Indian Laws

Bail application - Bribe - allegation of receiving bribe on behalf of senior officials - abettor to the principal perpetrator Accused 1 or not - HELD THAT - The senior accused A-1 had been requested to issue a patta in favour of the complainant. A-2 A-1 s junior officer was given the trap money in A-1 s office and on his behalf by the complainant who was accompanied by a trap witness. On exiting the office of A-1 A-2 was at once apprehended. Although A-1 had not been entrapped per se he was found to be conclusively incriminated by the circumstances and evidence of the complainant. The conviction of Accused 1 perfectly sustainable. It is an argument a fortiori supportive of Accused 1 s conviction herein since in Shamsudhin A-2 s receipt in A-1 s office on behalf of A-1 could conceivably have been repudiated by A-1 on the ground that he himself could have taken receipt of the bribe amount in his own office being physically present there at the time of payment and need not have relied on his junior officer to take receipt thereof on his behalf. Contrarily in the case before us Accused 1 s absence from the office at the time of the trap strengthens rather than weakens the claim that his junior officer Accused 2 was receiving part of the bribe amount as a custodian on his behalf. Bail of both Accused stands hereby cancelled. Consequently it is directed that the Accused persons are to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remainder of their sentences - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Conviction under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
3. Conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
4. Legitimacy and evidentiary value of the complainant's testimony.
5. Legitimacy of the second demand notice issued by Accused 1.
6. Constructive receipt of bribe by Accused 1.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
The High Court set aside the conviction of Accused 1 under these sections while upholding the conviction of Accused 2. The Supreme Court found that Accused 2 was successfully entrapped with Rs. 2000 recovered from his possession, and he admitted to receiving the bribe amount. The defense's claim that Accused 2 received the bribe solely on behalf of Accused 1 was rejected, affirming that Accused 2 accepted the sum for himself and on behalf of Accused 1.

2. Conviction under Section 120B of the IPC:
The High Court affirmed the conviction of both Accused 1 and Accused 2 under Section 120B, IPC, but reduced their sentence to one year each. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding that the conspiracy between the accused was well established through the evidence presented, particularly the testimony of the complainant and the circumstances of the bribe demand and acceptance.

3. Conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act:
Both Accused 1 and Accused 2 were convicted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Trial Court, and the High Court reduced their sentences to one year each. The Supreme Court upheld these convictions, emphasizing that the evidence demonstrated a clear demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused.

4. Legitimacy and Evidentiary Value of the Complainant's Testimony:
The Supreme Court discussed the nature of evidence in trap cases, distinguishing between accomplice evidence and decoy/trap witness evidence. The Court stated that the complainant's testimony should not be dismissed as "interested" or "partisan" without substantial reasons. The complainant had no discernible motive to falsely implicate Accused 1, and his testimony was corroborated by other evidence, including the circumstances of the bribe demand and the trap.

5. Legitimacy of the Second Demand Notice Issued by Accused 1:
The second demand notice issued by Accused 1 was deemed illegal by both the Trial Court and the High Court. The Assistant Commissioner testified that Accused 1 did not obtain the necessary permission before issuing the second notice. The Supreme Court agreed that the notice was a graft-inducing ploy designed to extort a bribe from the complainant.

6. Constructive Receipt of Bribe by Accused 1:
The Supreme Court considered the concept of constructive receipt, where an accused may be culpable even if they did not physically receive the bribe money. The Court found that Accused 2 received the bribe on behalf of Accused 1, who was absent at the time of the trap. The evidence indicated that Accused 1 was the primary authority behind the demand notice and the bribe demand, making him equally culpable.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, sustaining the judgment of the Madras High Court. The bail of both accused was canceled, and they were ordered to be taken into custody to serve the remainder of their sentences. The appeals were dismissed, and the interim order was recalled.