2023 (7) TMI 1348 - HC - Indian Laws

Illegal gratification - HELD THAT - In the present case, it is the evidence of P.W.2 that on 12.08.2010 at 10.30 a.m. received phone call from accused and demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 9,000/- at any cost and he has recorded the same in his mobile. The mobile number of P.W.2 is 9886993653 and mobile number of accused is 9448406990. In view of the above evidence of P.W.2, he claims that accused has called him over phone and demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 9,000/- at any cost. The evidence of P.W.9 would go to show that he has collected the call details of mobile used by accused Ex.P.34. P.W.9 claims that accused through the mobile of Vittal Dasar called the complainant over phone and demanded illegal gratification - The evidence of P.W.11 who is the investigating officer from registering the case till the conclusion of trap panchanama did never speak anything that accused has used the mobile of P.W.5 to contact complainant over phone to make demand of illegal gratification. The trial Court has not considered the effect of no work of complainant pending as on the date of filing complaint or on the date of trap, further there being no any concrete evidence to prove demand for illegal gratification erroneously proceeded to convict the accused which cannot be legally sustained. Therefore, interference of this Court is required. Judgment of the trial Court on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PCA) Belagavi, in special Case No. 132/2011 dated 02.02.2013 hereby set-aside - The accused is acquitted and his bail bond stands discharged. Appeal filed by the appellant/accused is hereby allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the complaint and sending FIR to the Court.
2. Whether the accused demanded and accepted illegal gratification.
3. Whether the work of the complainant was pending with the accused at the time of the alleged demand and acceptance of bribe.

Summary:

Issue 1: Delay in Filing the Complaint and Sending FIR to the Court
The appellant/accused contended that there was a delay in filing the complaint and sending the FIR to the Court, which was not satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. The trial Court failed to appreciate this defense, leading to the appeal.

Issue 2: Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification
The prosecution's case was based on the allegation that the accused, a C.D.P.O. at Ramdurg, demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 9,000/- from the complainant, who was the President of Shabari Rural Development Society. The prosecution relied on the evidence of the complainant (P.W.2), shadow witness (P.W.3), and co-panch witness (P.W.4) to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe. However, the accused claimed that the money received was a repayment of a loan, not a bribe. The Court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification through credible evidence, as there were inconsistencies in the testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence.

Issue 3: Pending Work of the Complainant
The Court observed that the accused had already disbursed the cheques to the complainant on 05.08.2010, which were encashed on 06.08.2010. As a result, no work of the complainant was pending with the accused at the time of filing the complaint on 13.08.2010 or during the trap on 16.08.2010. The Court referred to precedents, including the judgment in A. Subair vs. State of Kerala, which held that for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the work of the complainant must be pending with the accused at the time of the alleged bribe. Since this condition was not met, the conviction could not be sustained.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the trial Court convicting the accused was set aside. The accused was acquitted, and any fine amount deposited was ordered to be refunded. The registry was directed to transmit the records with a copy of the judgment to the trial Court.