2015 (4) TMI 1328 - SC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - acquittal of he accused - illegal gratification - High Court found that the prosecution had established the case beyond any doubt and that the trial court had not considered the evidence of material witness in proper perspective - HELD THAT - The signature of surety Sidharaju was obtained in the Bail Bond Register on 1.12.2005 but that of PW-3 complainant was not allowed to be taken. Such signature was taken only after the exchange of money as stated by PW-3 and PW-1. Moreover, no entry was made in the Station Diary Ext. P-5 as stated by PW-6 Investigating Officer as well as PW-5 Basavraju. The Trial Court was therefore not justified in concluding that everything stood completed on 1.12.2005 itself - As regards these facets of the matter, there is complete consistency between PW-1 Umashankar and PW-3 complainant and as regards other features of the matter i.e. after the raiding party had entered the Police Station, they also stand corroborated by the other witnesses. The immediate explanation offered by the Appellant was that the money was thrust into his pocket but this was given up and the Appellant remained silent. In the absence of any evidence offered by the Appellant to explain the circumstances, the presumption Under Section 20 of the Act was not in any way rebutted and the prosecution case stood completely established - the High Court was conscious that it was considering the appeal against acquittal but it was justified in interfering in the matter and reversing the acquittal. There is no infirmity in the view taken by the High Court. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal challenging conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Allegations of demand for illegal gratification by a Sub Inspector of Police.
3. Trap laid by Lokayukta Police Station.
4. Inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.
5. Acquittal by Trial Court and subsequent conviction by High Court.
6. Analysis of evidence and witness testimonies.
7. Application of presumption under Section 20 of the Act.

Issue 1: Appeal challenging conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
The appeal challenged the judgment convicting the Appellant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court set aside the judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court and sentenced the Appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment and pay fines.

Issue 2: Allegations of demand for illegal gratification by a Sub Inspector of Police
The case originated from a complaint lodged by a witness with the Lokayukta Police Station, alleging that the Appellant, a Sub Inspector of Police, demanded money from individuals seeking bail. The prosecution contended that the Appellant demanded money to allow the signing of bail bonds.

Issue 3: Trap laid by Lokayukta Police Station
The Lokayukta Police Station laid a trap with witnesses and marked currency notes. The witnesses, including Panchas, accompanied the complainant to the Police Station. The marked currency notes were handed over to the Appellant, who allegedly kept them in his pocket, leading to his apprehension.

Issue 4: Inconsistencies in the prosecution's case
The Trial Court identified 21 inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, including the timing of events and the completion of bail bond procedures. The Trial Court acquitted the Appellant based on these inconsistencies and lack of corroboration on material particulars.

Issue 5: Acquittal by Trial Court and subsequent conviction by High Court
The Trial Court acquitted the Appellant due to doubts regarding the alleged demand for illegal gratification. However, the High Court, upon appeal by the State, found the demand and acceptance of money fully established, leading to the Appellant's conviction.

Issue 6: Analysis of evidence and witness testimonies
Witness testimonies, including those of the complainant, Panchas, investigating officers, and other witnesses, were crucial in establishing the sequence of events. The High Court found consistency in the testimonies regarding the demand, acceptance of money, and subsequent actions inside the Police Station.

Issue 7: Application of presumption under Section 20 of the Act
The Appellant's initial explanation that money was thrust into his pocket was later retracted, and he chose to remain silent during the trial. The High Court invoked the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, as the Appellant failed to offer any evidence to rebut the prosecution's case.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to convict the Appellant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Despite the Appellant's medical condition, the Court directed immediate surrender to serve the sentence.