2015 (2) TMI 1398 - SC - Indian Laws

Reversal of acquittal recorded under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - illegal gratification - demand of bribe - HELD THAT - It is agreed that the High Court that the trial court while appreciating the prosecution evidence completely ignored the presumption required to be taken under Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Sub-section (1) of Section 20 provides that where, in any trial of an offence punishable Under Section 7 or Section 11 or Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. In the present case, there was no question of giving benefit of reasonable doubt to the accused. In Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Om Prakash 1971 (12) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT , explaining the expression reasonable doubt , this Court has observed that It does not mean that the evidence must be so strong as to exclude even a remote possibility that the accused could not have committed the offence. If that were so the law would fail to protect society as in no case can such a possibility be excluded. It will give room for fanciful conjectures or untenable doubts and will result in deflecting the course of justice if not thwarting it altogether. In view of law laid down by this Court, as above, and after considering evidence on record in the light of Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, we hold that the trial court did err in law in giving benefit of reasonable doubt in the present case relating to corruption. Considering the rival submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court convicting and sentencing the Appellant Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of High Court reversing the trial court's acquittal.
2. Evaluation of evidence and witness credibility.
3. Application of Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. Interpretation of "reasonable doubt" in corruption cases.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of High Court reversing the trial court's acquittal:
The High Court reversed the acquittal of the appellant by the Special Judge, Osmanabad, and convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in overturning the trial court's decision. The High Court concluded that the trial court erred in law by giving the accused the benefit of doubt and found that the charge was proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court upheld this conclusion, stating that the trial court's judgment was not supported by the evidence on record.

2. Evaluation of evidence and witness credibility:
The prosecution's case was built on the testimony of several witnesses, including PW-9 Anant Deshmukh, who was the complainant. Deshmukh detailed the sequence of events leading to the demand for a bribe by the appellant. His testimony was corroborated by PW-1 Uttam Bhutekar and PW-3 Sahebrao Wanve, who were panch witnesses. The Supreme Court noted that the oral testimony of these witnesses was further supported by documentary evidence such as the panchnama and the written complaint. The trial court's decision to acquit the appellant was based on a statement made by Deshmukh during cross-examination, where he claimed that no demand for a bribe was made. The Supreme Court found this statement unreliable, considering the time lapse and potential influence on the witness.

3. Application of Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, presumes that any gratification accepted by a public servant is a bribe unless proven otherwise. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the trial court ignored this presumption. The appellant admitted that the currency notes were recovered from his pocket, and there was no credible evidence to rebut the presumption of corruption. The Supreme Court highlighted that the trial court failed to apply this legal presumption appropriately.

4. Interpretation of "reasonable doubt" in corruption cases:
The Supreme Court discussed the concept of "reasonable doubt" as explained in Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Om Prakash (1972) 1 SCC 249. It emphasized that reasonable doubt should be based on rational thinking and credible evidence, not on fanciful conjectures or timid skepticism. The trial court's decision to acquit the appellant was based on an unreasonable doubt, which the High Court correctly overturned. The Supreme Court reiterated that corruption cases should be judged with a stringent standard due to their severe impact on society.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment convicting the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to surrender to serve the remaining part of his sentence.