2022 (2) TMI 1004 - SC - Indian Laws

Bribery - demand of illegal gratification - demand of ₹ 3,000/- by way of illegal gratification was made by the appellant for passing the assessment order - HELD THAT - The offence under Section 7 of the PC Act relating to public servants taking bribe requires a demand of illegal gratification and the acceptance thereof. The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. The version of PW1 in his examination-in-chief about the demand made by the appellant from time to time is an improvement. As stated earlier, LW8 did not enter the appellant s chamber at the time of trap. There is no other evidence of the alleged demand. Thus, the evidence of PW1 about the demand for bribe by the appellant is not at all reliable. Hence, we conclude that the demand made by the appellant has not been conclusively proved - this is a case where the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant was not proved by the prosecution. Thus, the demand which is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 was not established. The conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act is set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Alleged demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant.
3. Reliability of prosecution witnesses and evidence.
4. Procedural lapses during the trap and investigation.
5. Applicability of Section 20 of the PC Act regarding presumption of guilt.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
The appellant was convicted by the Special Court under the PC Act for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2). This conviction was confirmed by the High Court of Telangana.

2. Alleged Demand and Acceptance of Bribe:
The prosecution alleged that the appellant, a Commercial Tax Officer, demanded a bribe of ?3,000/- from PW1, the complainant, for issuing an assessment order. This demand was allegedly reiterated over several days. On 23rd March 2000, the demand was scaled down to ?2,000/-. During a trap laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), PW1 claimed to have handed the tainted currency notes to the appellant, who instructed him to place them in a diary, which she then locked in her drawer. However, the appellant's defence was that PW1 placed the currency notes in the diary while she was in the washroom.

3. Reliability of Prosecution Witnesses and Evidence:
The appellant’s counsel argued that the demand for a bribe was not proved and that PW1's evidence was an improvement. It was noted that LW8, who was supposed to accompany PW1 during the trap, did not enter the appellant’s chamber. The sodium carbonate test did not show the appellant’s fingers turning pink, suggesting she did not handle the currency notes. The appellant also pointed out that the notice dated 26th February 2000, served on the said Society on 15th March 2000, indicated that the Society was not liable to pay any tax, casting doubt on the prosecution's case.

4. Procedural Lapses during the Trap and Investigation:
The prosecution's case was further weakened by procedural lapses. LW8 did not accompany PW1 inside the appellant’s chamber during the trap, contrary to instructions. This lack of an independent witness inside the chamber at the time of the alleged bribe acceptance was a significant lapse. Additionally, PW1 admitted in cross-examination that his statements about the demand made by the appellant were improvements, undermining his credibility.

5. Applicability of Section 20 of the PC Act Regarding Presumption of Guilt:
The court emphasized that under Section 7 of the PC Act, the demand and acceptance of a bribe are sine qua non for establishing the offence. Mere recovery of the amount without proof of demand is insufficient for conviction. The court cited the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, which held that the proof of demand is critical for establishing offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the demand for illegal gratification by the appellant. The evidence of PW1 was found unreliable due to improvements and lack of corroboration from an independent witness. Consequently, the demand, which is essential for establishing the offence under Section 7, was not established. The court set aside the impugned judgments, allowed the appeal, and acquitted the appellant of the charges framed against her.