2023 (2) TMI 1381 - HC - Indian Laws

Bribery/illgal gratification - acceptance of bribe in violation of Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act - evidence presented was sufficient to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond a reasonable doubt or not - HELD THAT - Presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act can only be in respect of offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act and not under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. It is only on truth of acceptance of illegal gratification such presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or for forbearing to do any official act. Here in this case demand cannot be said to have been proved. Evidence it is settled principle of law is to be considered from the point of view of human probability. According to P.W. 1 the accused persons demanded a sum of Rs. 35, 000/- as bribe but did not give any instruction as to the place where the money would be given or taken. The witness P.W. 1 along with CBI officers after pre-trap proceedings came to Kharagpur Railway Station and made a phone call to Mr. Paritosh Saha. The call was received by Mr. D. Ghosh who advised the caller to make a call after an hour. Till then no intimation was given as to the place where P.W. 1 was supposed to hand over the money but P.W. 1 and the members of the raiding team boarded a train from Kharagpur Railway Station for Howrah and made a phone call to Paritosh Saha which was again received by Mr. D. Ghosh and D. Ghosh asked him to come to Santragachi with further instruction to call him before reaching Santragachi. The money as stated by P.W. 15 was not recovered from the possession of the accused persons. So far recovery of money is concerned P.W. 1 stated that when Partha Pratim Ghosh was trying to go away at that time CBI officials caught hold of him. According to P.W. 2 white colour envelope was recovered from the rear seat of the car and according to P.W. 15 Partha Pratim Ghosh was arrested while he was running towards Vidyasagar Setu. Money was recovered not from his possession but from the rear seat of the car. The discrepancies cannot be considered to be minor in nature pebbles in shapes rather they appear to be boulders and Court should not jump over it. Of course discrepancy as to the date of demand stated by P.W. 1 should be considered as minor one. Conclusion - The prosecution had not proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused person is found to be not guilty to the charges under Section 7 and 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the P.C. Act. He be set at liberty and be released from bail bond subject to furnishing a bond under Section 437A of the Cr.P.C. for six months. Let a copy of this judgement be sent down along with lower Court record to the learned Trial Court for information and necessary compliance.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The judgment primarily revolves around the following legal issues:

Whether the accused, Partha Pratim Ghosh, was guilty of accepting a bribe in violation of Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act).
Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whether the discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses affected the credibility of the prosecution's case.
Whether the legal presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act was rightly applied by the Trial Court.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Guilt under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 7 of the P.C. Act deals with public servants taking gratification other than legal remuneration. Section 13(1)(d) pertains to criminal misconduct by a public servant. The court examined these provisions to determine if the accused's actions constituted an offense under these sections.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court scrutinized the evidence and testimonies to determine if the accused had indeed demanded and accepted a bribe. It noted inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative, particularly concerning the timing and manner of the alleged bribe demand and acceptance.
Key evidence and findings: The prosecution relied on testimonies from various witnesses, including P.W. 1, P.W. 2, and P.W. 15. However, discrepancies in their accounts, such as differences in the timing of the alleged bribe demand and the recovery of the money, weakened the prosecution's case.
Application of law to facts: The court applied the legal standards for proving corruption under the P.C. Act and found that the prosecution had not met the burden of proof required to establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Treatment of competing arguments: The defense argued that the prosecution's case was marred by inconsistencies and that the accused had not been caught in possession of the bribe money. The court found merit in these arguments, noting that the prosecution failed to provide a coherent and consistent narrative.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the prosecution had not proven the charges under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

Issue 2: Sufficiency of Evidence

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The court considered the legal standards for the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases, emphasizing the need for consistency and credibility in witness testimonies.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court highlighted the inconsistencies in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses, which undermined the reliability of the evidence presented.
Key evidence and findings: Testimonies from P.W. 1, P.W. 2, and P.W. 15 were inconsistent regarding the timing and circumstances of the alleged bribe demand and acceptance.
Application of law to facts: The court applied the principle that evidence must be consistent and credible to support a conviction. The discrepancies in witness testimonies led the court to question the sufficiency of the evidence.
Treatment of competing arguments: The defense successfully argued that the inconsistencies in the prosecution's case created reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt.
Conclusions: The court found that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

Issue 3: Application of Presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 20 of the P.C. Act allows for a presumption of guilt if a public servant is found to have accepted gratification. However, this presumption can be rebutted by the accused.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court noted that the presumption under Section 20 could only be applied if the acceptance of illegal gratification was proven. Given the inconsistencies in the evidence, the court found that this presumption was not applicable.
Key evidence and findings: The court found that the prosecution had not established the acceptance of the bribe with sufficient certainty to invoke the presumption under Section 20.
Application of law to facts: The court determined that the lack of clear evidence of bribe acceptance precluded the application of the presumption under Section 20.
Treatment of competing arguments: The defense argued that the presumption should not apply due to the lack of clear evidence, and the court agreed with this position.
Conclusions: The presumption under Section 20 was not applied, contributing to the court's decision to acquit the accused.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The discrepancies as discussed hereinabove, cannot be considered to be minor in nature, pebbles in shapes, rather they appear to be boulders and Court should not jump over it."
Core principles established: The court emphasized the importance of consistent and credible evidence in proving charges of corruption. It highlighted that discrepancies in witness testimonies could undermine the prosecution's case.
Final determinations on each issue: The court set aside the conviction of the accused under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, finding that the prosecution had not proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused was acquitted and released from bail bond.

← Previous Next →