2023 (3) TMI 1454 - SC - Indian Laws

Illegal gratification - Recovery of phenolphthalein coated currency notes with same serial numbers - conviction of accused - HELD THAT - In the case in hand, Jit Singh, complainant as well as Chamkaur Singh, shadow witness have turned hostile. The Trial Court had specifically held that there is no evidence produced on record to prove the demand of illegal gratification. It is not the case in which the demand was reiterated when the money was allegedly paid to him. Gurjinder Singh (PW-8) is only a witness who stated that he had recovered the money from the Appellant. The High Court has passed its judgment on the assumption that the money having been recovered from the Appellant, there was demand of illegal gratification. This is not a case where there was circumstantial evidence to prove the demand. If the evidence produced on record by the prosecution is examined in the light of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in NEERAJ DUTTA VERSUS STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) 2022 (12) TMI 1490 - SUPREME COURT , the conviction and sentence of the Appellant cannot be legally sustained. The impugned order passed by the High Court and that of the Trial Court are set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the charges and his bail bond stands discharged - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The appellant challenged his conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The key issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification
The facts revealed that a demand of Rs. 500 was made for a death certificate, and the appellant accepted Rs. 300. However, during the trial, key witnesses did not support the prosecution's version. The prosecution failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification. The recovery of money from the appellant was not sufficient to establish demand. The High Court assumed demand based on the recovery, but there was no circumstantial evidence to support this. The Constitution Bench judgment emphasized the importance of proving both demand and acceptance. As per the legal principles laid down, without evidence of demand, the conviction cannot be sustained. The appellant was acquitted as the evidence did not establish the essential element of demand.

Conclusion:
Considering the lack of evidence to prove the demand of illegal gratification, the conviction of the appellant was not legally sustainable. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges. The orders of the Trial Court and the High Court were set aside, and the appellant's bail bond was discharged.