2023 (4) TMI 1289 - SC - Indian Laws

Bribe/gratification - omission to frame a proper charge regarding demand allegedly made - offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - HELD THAT - It is well settled that for establishing the commission of an offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, proof of demand of gratification and acceptance of the gratification is a sine qua non. Moreover, the Constitution Bench in the case of Neeraj Dutta 2022 (12) TMI 1490 - SUPREME COURT has reiterated that the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act can be invoked only on proof of facts in issue, namely, the demand of gratification by the accused and the acceptance thereof. To attract Section 7 of the PC Act, the demand for gratification has to be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. The word used in Section 7, as it existed before 26th July 2018, is 'gratification'. There has to be a demand for gratification. It is not a simple demand for money, but it has to be a demand for gratification. If the factum of demand of gratification and acceptance thereof is proved, then the presumption under Section 20 can be invoked, and the Court can presume that the demand must be as a motive or reward for doing any official act. This presumption can be rebutted by the accused. There is no circumstantial evidence of demand for gratification in this case. In the circumstances, the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) have not been established. Unless both demand and acceptance are established, offence of obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt means covered by clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 13(1)(d) cannot be proved. The Trial Courts ought to be very meticulous when it comes to the framing of charges. In a given case, any such error or omission may lead to acquittal and/or a long delay in trial due to an order of remand which can be passed under sub section (2) of Section 464 of CrPC. Apart from the duty of the Trial Court, even the public prosecutor has a duty to be vigilant, and if a proper charge is not framed, it is his duty to apply to the Court to frame an appropriate charge. The impugned judgments are quashed and set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of the offences alleged against him. The bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the issues of framing a proper charge, proof of demand, and acceptance of gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Framing a Proper Charge:
The appellant raised concerns regarding the failure to frame a specific charge regarding demands made on different dates. The Special Court had omitted to frame charges for demands allegedly made on 6th and 13th August 2004. However, the judgment highlighted that under Section 464 of the CrPC, the omission or error in framing a charge is not fatal unless it results in a failure of justice. It was noted that the appellant had understood the prosecution's case regarding the demands, and the omission did not prejudice his right to defend. The Court emphasized the importance of meticulous charge framing by Trial Courts to avoid acquittals or trial delays. The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgments were quashed, and the appellant was acquitted of the alleged offences.

Proof of Demand and Acceptance of Gratification:
The judgment emphasized the necessity of proving the demand and acceptance of gratification to establish an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court referred to precedents, including a Constitution Bench decision, highlighting that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can only be invoked upon proof of the demand and acceptance. In this case, the complainant did not support the prosecution, and the shadow witness did not specifically testify to a demand for gratification. Without circumstantial evidence of demand, the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) were not deemed established. The Court clarified that both demand and acceptance must be proven to establish the offence of obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt means.