2023 (8) TMI 1421 - HC - Indian Laws

Illegal gratification demanded by Public Servant - HELD THAT - There is no any positive evidence on record to prove that accused has demanded bribe money at any point of time. Therefore, in view of the principles enunciated in the aforementioned judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, the proof of demand and acceptance of bribe money is sine qua non for proving the offence under Section 7 and 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act. The evidence placed on record by the prosecution does not conclusively prove the accused having demanded bribe money for doing the work of complainant. The Trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence on record to satisfy the test of twin requirement of demand and acceptance of bribe money for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act erroneously recorded finding that prosecution has proved the guilt against accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In view of the reasons recorded above, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled against him and as such interference of this Court is required. The judgment of the Trial Court on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PCA), Belgaum, in Spl.C.No.164/2011, dated 30.11.2013 is hereby set aside - The accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act - Appeal filed by the appellant/accused is hereby allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the accused, a public servant, demanded and accepted illegal gratification.
2. Whether the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe.
3. Whether the Trial Court correctly appreciated the evidence and legal principles in convicting the accused.

Summary:

Issue 1: Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification
The prosecution alleged that the accused, a secretary in Gram Panchayat Santi-Bastwad village, demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant for mutating his name on property records. The complainant approached the accused on 3-7-2009, and the accused demanded the bribe, which was paid on 24-07-2009. The accused was charged with criminal misconduct for abusing his position to obtain pecuniary advantage.

Issue 2: Evidence Provided by Prosecution
The prosecution relied on the testimonies of the complainant (PW-2), panch witness (PW-9), and the Investigating Officer (PW-11), along with documentary evidence (Ex.P.1 to 35). The complainant's application for mutation (Ex.P.12), the complaint (Ex.P.2), and the panchanamas (Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.17) were key documents. The prosecution also presented evidence of the accused's hand wash turning pink, indicating contact with phenolphthalein-smeared currency notes.

Issue 3: Trial Court's Appreciation of Evidence
The Trial Court convicted the accused based on the evidence presented. However, the accused argued that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in light of his defense and that there was no acceptable evidence proving the demand and acceptance of the bribe. The accused contended that the mere recovery of tainted money without proof of demand was insufficient for conviction.

High Court's Analysis and Judgment:
The High Court re-evaluated the evidence and found significant gaps:
- The complainant's delay in filing the complaint and lack of follow-up between 03-06-2009 and 24-07-2009.
- The absence of corroborative evidence from key witnesses, including PW-10, who did not support the prosecution's case.
- The lack of recorded conversation between the complainant and the accused, despite the complainant being provided with a voice recorder.
- The defense's argument that the money was paid as part of a maintenance agreement between the complainant and his father, not as a bribe.

The High Court emphasized that proof of both demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. The prosecution failed to conclusively prove the demand for illegal gratification, and the evidence did not meet the required standard. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Trial Court's judgment, acquitted the accused, and ordered the refund of any fine paid.

Order:
The appeal was allowed, the Trial Court's judgment was set aside, and the accused was acquitted of the charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. The bail bonds and sureties were discharged, and the fine amount, if any, was ordered to be refunded. The Registry was directed to transmit the records with the copy of this judgment to the Trial Court.