2019 (7) TMI 110 - HC - Indian Laws

Demand of Bribe - illegal gratification or not - Offences punishable under Section 7 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Learned Spl. PP for the CBI has vehemently contended that since the FSL revealed that the hand-wash, pant pocket wash and wash of the bed-sheet turned pink, it proves beyond reasonable doubt that the bribe amount was indeed accepted by the respondent and the said evidence in itself is sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent. HELD THAT - V. Swaminathan the complainant deposed that the respondent was representing himself as one Mr. Sachdev and did not disclose his identity which he came to know when he attended the meeting of IMWG at Chennai in January 2009 to make out a case of initial demand. However, these facts were deposed by the complainant for the first time in his testimony before the Court only and thus the learned Trial Court rightly rejected the same being material improvements. Further, the testimony of V. Swaminathan, shadow witness and the TLO Insp. Rajesh Chahal does not establish specific demand of bribe by the respondent during the trap proceedings. The tape recorded conversations exhibited by the prosecution purportedly of the recording of the conversations at the time of trap does not reveal a demand of bribe. The investigating officer in his testimony before the Court admitted that the version in the purported transcript for demand of bribe was admittedly not there when the actual cassette was played in Court. Thus, there is no evidence to establish demand of bribe at the time of raid. Case of the respondent in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was that he was innocent and falsely implicated at the instance of Dr. Shyam Aggarwal, Chairman of IMWG who was known to Vineet Aggarwal S.P. CBI and in conspiracy with the complainant, this corruption case was foisted on the respondent. The respondent had strongly objected to conducting of confidential IMWG Meeting in Chennai in the presence of complainant whose 5 applications were pending. The respondent had witnessed bribe given to Dr. Shyam Aggarwal by the complainant for conspiring to conduct IMWG Meeting in complainant s hotel and permitting him to try to influence members to give NOC to all his pending applications - Further, DW-2 in his cross-examination admitted that on 8th April, 2009 the Cabinet Secretariat granted NOC for applying for the export license by M/s. Titanium Taltalum Products Ltd. The documents produced in defence evidence prima facie fortify the claim of the respondent in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Considering the fact that the view expressed by the learned Trial Court based on the evidence adduced is a plausible view, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment of acquittal. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Acquittal of the respondent by the Trial Court.
2. Alleged demand and acceptance of bribe by the respondent.
3. Validity of recorded conversations as evidence.
4. Motive for demand of illegal gratification.
5. Procedural lapses and bias in investigation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Acquittal of the respondent by the Trial Court:
The CBI challenged the impugned judgment dated 11th December 2015, which acquitted the respondent of offences under Section 7 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Trial Court acquitted the respondent due to lack of evidence establishing the demand and acceptance of bribe, procedural lapses, and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.

2. Alleged demand and acceptance of bribe by the respondent:
The prosecution alleged that the respondent demanded a bribe of ?8,00,000/- from V. Swaminathan for clearing an export license. During verification, a telephonic conversation was recorded, revealing the demand and willingness to accept the bribe. A trap was set, and the respondent was allegedly caught accepting ?1,00,000/- as part of the bribe. However, the Trial Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the demand and acceptance of the bribe convincingly. The shadow witness and TLO Inspector Rajesh Chahal could not confirm the explicit demand for the bribe during the trap proceedings.

3. Validity of recorded conversations as evidence:
The recorded conversation between the respondent and V. Swaminathan was a crucial piece of evidence. However, the original DVR was not produced in court, and the prosecution failed to provide a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, rendering the audio tapes inadmissible. The Trial Court noted that the specific portion of the recording showing the demand for the bribe was missing, further weakening the prosecution's case.

4. Motive for demand of illegal gratification:
The prosecution argued that the respondent had the motive to demand the bribe as the NOC for the export license was pending in his office. However, the defense established that the respondent was not the final authority for granting the NOC. The testimony of DW-2 and minutes of the IMWG meeting indicated that the approval for the complainant's company was granted unconditionally, except for the case related to Qatar, which was subject to NOC from the Cabinet Secretariat. The respondent had already forwarded the necessary note for approval to his superiors.

5. Procedural lapses and bias in investigation:
The Trial Court highlighted several procedural lapses and potential bias in the investigation. The initial complaint by V. Swaminathan was not placed on record, and there was no explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR. The investigation appeared to be biased, with the respondent alleging a conspiracy involving Dr. Shyam Aggarwal and V. Swaminathan. The defense argued that the respondent was a whistleblower who was falsely implicated.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the Trial Court's judgment, noting that the view expressed by the Trial Court was plausible based on the evidence presented. The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment of acquittal was not interfered with. The case highlighted the importance of proper procedural adherence and unbiased investigation in corruption cases.