9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and sentencing u/s 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Allegation of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. 3. Reliability and corroboration of witness testimony. 4. Requirement of proving demand and voluntary acceptance of bribe. Summary: Issue 1: Conviction and Sentencing u/s 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 The appellant, a Deputy Chief Engineer, Railway Electrifications, South Central Railway, was convicted by the Special Judge for CBI cases at Visakhapatnam for offences u/s 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for each offence, with sentences to run concurrently. The High Court affirmed this conviction and sentence, leading to the present appeal. Issue 2: Allegation of Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification The prosecution alleged that the appellant demanded Rs. 3,000/- as illegal gratification from a contractor for passing a final bill. The contractor reported this to the CBI, leading to a pre-trap exercise and subsequent trap where the appellant was caught accepting the bribe. Sodium carbonate tests on the appellant's fingers and right trouser pocket turned pink, indicating contact with the tainted money. Issue 3: Reliability and Corroboration of Witness Testimony The appellant argued that strained relations with the contractor made the demand for illegal gratification improbable. The defense cited previous judgments emphasizing the need for corroboration of the complainant's testimony. However, the court held that the contractor, being forced to pay the bribe, was not an accomplice and his testimony was reliable. The shadow-witness and the Inspector's evidence corroborated the contractor's account, supporting the prosecution's case. Issue 4: Requirement of Proving Demand and Voluntary Acceptance of Bribe The appellant contended that mere recovery of tainted money does not constitute an offence unless demand and voluntary acceptance of the bribe are proven. The court agreed with the principle but found that both elements were satisfied in this case. The evidence showed that the appellant demanded the bribe and accepted it voluntarily, as indicated by the positive sodium carbonate test results. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's submissions. The conviction and sentence were upheld, and the appellant was directed to surrender to serve the remainder of his sentence.
|
