2023 (6) TMI 687 - HC - Indian Laws

Bribe - bribing the public servant, having abetted P.W. 1 for commission of the offence Punishable Under Section 7 of P.C. Act - conviction of appellant under Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) - sentence to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- - burden to prove - benefit of doubt when two views are present - error in accepting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses - HELD THAT - On perusal of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Lalitha Kumari's case 2013 (11) TMI 1520 - SUPREME COURT when P.W. 1 informed DCP Venugopal and in turn, the DCP informed P.W. 5 police inspector to go the house of P.W. 1. The cash handed over by the accused to P.W. 2 becomes cognizable offence under the provisions of the P.C. Act. Immediately, P.W. 5 could have informed the police station for making an entry in SHD regarding commission of offence and receipt of the complaint at 8.30 p.m., but he has seized the cash at 8.30 p.m. and thereafter he went to the police station and registered FIR only after 9.15 p.m. by showing the name of the accused. Therefore, when the accused was not present on the spot and the chit left by him along with the cash was not handed over to P.W. 5, then it was the case required for preliminary enquiry before registering the FIR. Even otherwise, if it is a definite case that the accused came and gave money as it is cognizable offence, then registering FIR is mandatory and then the investigation officer could have seized the cash under the panchanama, but P.W. 5 seized the cash and started investigation prior to the registering the FIR. Therefore, the very foundation of the prosecution commencing the investigation and thereafter registering the FIR vitiates the entire investigation and proceedings. That apart, P.W. 3 who is the colleague of P.W. 1, definitely used to support P.W. 1 and he has not seen the accused. The prosecution tried to connect the accused with the crime on the ground that the accused had a case before the P.W. 4-Assistant Commissioner and this P.W. 1 being joint commissioner compounded the offence and they received the tax amount from the accused. Such being the case, the work of the accused with P.W. 1 or P.W. 4 has been completed. The question of the accused bribing the complainant after completion of work cannot be acceptable as there is no working pending with P.W. 1. When the accused came to the house of P.W. 1 and at the same time, P.W. 3 might have come to the house and witnessed the cash left by the accused. Then there is every chance of P.W. 1 or P.W. 2 informing the police for registering the case. Otherwise, how the accused could come to the house of P.W. 1, who had given the address to the accused in order to bring money. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the accused might be the victim and P.W. 1 might have demanded money for having done favourable work to the accused. Therefore, when there are two views are possible, one, the accused might brought the money for bribing P.W. 1 for having done his work and compounding the offence, or second, P.W. 1 might have demanded bribe from the accused for completion of the work of the accused by compounding the case and then the amount brought by the accused was witnessed by P.W. 3. In order to avoid filing of the complaint by the accused before the Lokayuktha police, they have not touched the same and on the other hand, P.W. 1 lodged the complaint to the local police against the accused. If two views are possible, the view which is favourable to the accused shall be accepted. That apart, suppressing the chit left on the spot, mentioning the phone number and name of the accused by the prosecution witnesses creates serious doubt in the mind of the Court. In addition, no call detail records are collected and produced to show as to whether the accused telephoned P.W. 1 or contacted P.Ws. 1 or 4 through his mobile phone, prior to the alleged incident or whether the police or P.W. 1 tried to contact the accused through mobile phone, are not forthcoming. Therefore, the benefit of doubt shall be extended to the accused. The trial Court has committed an error in accepting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and it has ignored the total serious lapse on the part of investigation officer, commencement of investigation without registering the FIR, which was fatal to the prosecution case. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Benglauru Urban District is hereby set aside - The appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 12 of P.C. Act and his bail bond stands cancelled - The criminal appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused attempted to bribe a public servant, thereby committing an offense under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).
2. Whether the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court calls for interference.

Summary:

Issue 1: Proving the Bribery Attempt
The prosecution's case was based on the complaint by P.W. 1, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, who alleged that the accused attempted to bribe him with Rs. 50,000. The trial involved testimonies from seven witnesses and various documents. P.W. 1's wife (P.W. 2) received the bundle of money and informed her husband, leading to police involvement. However, significant evidence, such as a slip with the accused's phone number, was allegedly misplaced and not produced in court. The defense argued that the evidence was insufficient, and the burden of proof was wrongly placed. The court noted discrepancies, such as the lack of call records and the non-examination of independent witnesses, which created doubt about the accused's involvement.

Issue 2: Interference with the Trial Court's Judgment
The court found procedural lapses, including the seizure of cash before registering the FIR, violating mandatory provisions and guidelines from the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh. The court emphasized that the investigation should have followed proper procedures, including preliminary inquiries and timely FIR registration. The trial court's acceptance of the prosecution's evidence was deemed erroneous due to these procedural violations and the suppression of crucial evidence.

Conclusion:
The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to procedural lapses, insufficient evidence, and the suppression of crucial documents. The court set aside the trial court's judgment, acquitted the accused, and ordered the refund of any fine amount collected.