2014 (9) TMI 1282 - SC - Indian Laws

Illegal gratification - prosecution has failed to prove the offence Under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - HELD THAT - When PW1 Ramesh himself had disowned what he has stated in his initial complaint in Exh.P1 before PW4 Inspector Santosh Kumar and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW3 Kumaraswamy and the contents of Exh.P1 complaint cannot be relied upon to conclude that the said material furnishes proof of demand allegedly made by the accused. The High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence Under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant are liable to be set aside. The conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant/accused Under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against judgment of acquittal under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Conviction under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the High Court's judgment reversing the acquittal in Special Case No. 36 of 2001. The Appellant was found guilty under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and sentenced accordingly. The case involved the accused demanding illegal gratification for issuing a survey sketch, leading to a trap organized by the Lokayukta Police.

2. The Trial Court initially acquitted the accused due to lack of proof by the prosecution. However, the High Court convicted the accused under Section 13(1)(d) based on witness testimonies and evidence of the trap. The complainant, though declared hostile, was accompanied by a panch witness who testified to the illegal gratification exchange, forming the basis of the conviction.

3. During the appeal, it was argued that the prosecution failed to prove the demand for illegal gratification, a crucial element in corruption cases. Referring to a previous judgment, it was emphasized that mere possession and recovery of currency notes without proof of demand cannot establish the offense under Section 7 or Section 13(1)(d) of the Act.

4. The Court noted that the complainant disowned his initial complaint and there was no other evidence of the accused making a demand. Relying on the precedent, the Court concluded that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish the demand and, consequently, the conviction under Section 13(1)(d) was set aside, leading to the acquittal of the accused. The appeal was allowed, and the accused was acquitted of all charges.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, the progression of the case, and the reasoning behind the final decision to acquit the accused based on the lack of evidence proving the demand for illegal gratification.