2015 (8) TMI 1576 - SC - Indian Laws

Illegal gratification - Acceptance of Bribe or not - offence punishable Under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 - HELD THAT - It is apparent that the High Court has failed in its duty to come to the close quarter of the reasoning employed by the trial court while reversing the judgment of acquittal. Appreciation of evidence to hold it to be credible was required which has not been done by the High Court at all. In a cursory manner without reappraisal of the evidence and probabilities the judgment of acquittal has been reversed. Though the High Court has the power to re-appraise the evidence in appeal against acquittal but that has not been done. It is incumbent upon the High Court while reviewing the evidence and to reverse the order of acquittal to consider all matters on record including the reasons given by the trial court in respect of the order of acquittal and should consider all the circumstances in favour of the accused which has not been done. In the absence of the complainant the onus lay upon the prosecution to adduce credible evidence and to prove the guilt beyond the periphery of doubt. K.M. Eregowda PW-2 had stated that 10 to 12 other officials were sitting in the same room in which bribe was paid. Taking of bribe in the presence of 10 to 12 other officials of the Treasury Office is quite improbable. It assumes significance in the circumstances from which place the money was recovered; whether it was from the possession of the accused. PW-1 has stated that he found currency notes on the table and the accused was standing behind the table. Whereas K.N. Eregowda PW-2 has stated that the currency notes were kept by the accused beneath the book on the table - Since the complainant was not available for cross-examination the view taken by the trial court could not be said to be the one which was not possible in the prevailing scenario. Even if two views are possible on the facts one taken by the trial court did not call for interference especially in appeal against acquittal. In A. Subair v. State of Kerala 2009 (5) TMI 912 - SUPREME COURT this Court has laid down that illegal gratification has to be proved like any criminal offence and when the evidence produced by the prosecution has neither quality nor credibility it would be unsafe to rest the conviction on such evidence. Thus acceptance of the bribe has not been established by adducing cogent evidence. In view of the circumstances discussed above the view taken by the trial court was a plausible one and could not have been interfered with by the High Court that too without coming to the close quarters of the reasoning and re-appraisal of the evidence. The judgment of the High Court is not only cryptic but also no attempt has been made to look into the evidence-both oral and documentary. There are no hesitation in setting aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and restore that of the trial court - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's reversal of the trial court's acquittal.
2. Credibility and sufficiency of evidence presented by the prosecution.
3. Procedural irregularities and discrepancies in the prosecution's case.
4. Applicability of legal principles regarding appeals against acquittals.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the High Court's Reversal of the Trial Court's Acquittal:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to adequately address the reasoning employed by the trial court in acquitting the accused. The High Court's judgment was described as "short and cryptic," lacking a thorough reappraisal of the evidence and probabilities. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court must consider all matters on record, including the reasons given by the trial court, and should particularly consider those aspects which are in favor of the accused. The High Court's failure to do so was a significant procedural flaw.

2. Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence Presented by the Prosecution:
The trial court had acquitted the accused due to several key factors:
- The complainant, Peter Philip (CW-1), died before the trial, preventing cross-examination.
- The accused was not working in the relevant position on the date of the alleged bribe, as he had been transferred and relieved from his duties.
- Discrepancies in witness testimonies regarding where the bribe money was found (on the table, beneath a book, or in a drawer).
- The improbability of the accused taking a bribe in the presence of 10 to 12 other officials.
- The lack of credible evidence proving that the accused was in a position to influence the subsidy release.

The Supreme Court highlighted that the prosecution must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, especially when the complainant is not available for cross-examination. The evidence presented lacked the necessary quality and credibility to convict the accused.

3. Procedural Irregularities and Discrepancies in the Prosecution's Case:
The trial court noted several procedural irregularities:
- The First Information Report (FIR) was based on deliberations between the complainant and the Investigating Officer (IO) before its formal registration.
- The presence of trap witnesses was secured before the FIR was lodged.
- Contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses regarding the recovery of the bribe money.
- The accused was under transfer and not competent to transact official business on the date of the alleged bribe.

These irregularities cast doubt on the prosecution's case and supported the trial court's decision to acquit the accused.

4. Applicability of Legal Principles Regarding Appeals Against Acquittals:
The Supreme Court reiterated established legal principles regarding appeals against acquittals:
- The appellate court has full power to review the evidence but must consider all matters on record, including the reasons for acquittal.
- The appellate court should not act on conjectures or surmises and must provide strong reasons for reversing an acquittal.
- The view taken by the trial court must be a reasonable one, and even if another view is possible, it is not sufficient to set aside an acquittal.

The Supreme Court cited several precedents to support its decision, including Kanu Ambu Vish v. The State of Maharashtra and A. Subair v. State of Kerala, emphasizing that the High Court had overlooked these principles.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's acquittal of the accused. The judgment underscores the necessity for appellate courts to thoroughly reappraise evidence and provide detailed reasoning when reversing acquittals, ensuring that the accused's rights are adequately protected.