2025 (2) TMI 941 - HC - Indian Laws

Challenge to judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed against accused Nos. 1 and 2 - Acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused - Income Tax Officers - appreciation of acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. Whether the findings of the Trial Court in respect of the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused is justified? - HELD THAT - The evidence of P.W.8 who is the shadow witness to the incident would indicate that there was no demand of illegal gratification by accused No. 3. However P.W.1 was handing over the amount of Rs. 2, 50, 000/- to accused No. 3 at that time the accused No. 3 was apprehended by the respondent-CBI. On conjoint reading of the evidence of P.W.1 2 and 8 it can be inferred that the prosecution has failed to establish the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by accused Nos. 1 and 2. The Trial Court ought to have appreciated the evidence in such a manner before arriving at a conclusion that the accused are found guilty of offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. Whether the Trial Court is justified in appreciating the electronic evidence? - HELD THAT - Though P.W.8 supported the case of the prosecution in respect of the said mahazar the evidence of PWs.1 and 8 would clearly indicate that both these witnesses have not seen the removal of the memory card from the said M.O.6. Further it would indicate that they have not heard the conversations said to have been transferred to the Compact Discs (CD). In the absence of collecting the certificate as required under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act to prove the electronic evidence in respect of the memory card it is unsafe to rely on the evidence of the said electronic device. Though the prosecution has tried to impress the Court that the conversations that had taken place between the parties were transferred to CDs which are identified as M.O.s 1 7 and 9 as the primary evidence itself proved to be unacceptable the remaining portions ought not to have been considered by the Trial Court. However the Trial Court grossly committed an error in considering the said evidence. Therefore the findings of the Trial Court in respect of the electronic evidence is opposed to the settled principle of law. Whether the findings of the Trial Court in recording the conviction is justified? - HELD THAT - The lack of credible evidence of demand and acceptance coupled with inadmissible electronic evidence undermined the Trial Court s conviction. The conviction was unjustified and should be set aside. Conclusion - i) The demand and acceptance of illegal gratification were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt as required under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. ii) The electronic evidence was inadmissible due to the lack of a Section 65-B certificate and the Trial Court erred in considering it. iii) The conviction based on insufficient evidence and misappreciation of the law was unjustified. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge Dharwad is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The Court considered several core legal questions in this judgment:

1. Whether the findings of the Trial Court regarding the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused are justified.

2. Whether the Trial Court appropriately appreciated the electronic evidence.

3. Whether the findings of the Trial Court in recording the conviction are justified.

4. Whether the appellants have made a case to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The prosecution charged the appellants under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120-B of the IPC. Section 7 of the P.C. Act requires a demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to constitute an offence. The Supreme Court in N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu emphasized that demand is a sine qua non for the offence under Section 7.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the prosecution failed to establish a clear demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. The evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly from key witnesses, did not convincingly demonstrate the demand or acceptance of a bribe.

Key Evidence and Findings: The evidence from PWs.1, 2, and 8 was pivotal. PW.1's testimony regarding the demand was not corroborated by independent evidence. PW.2's evidence was deemed unreliable as he was not present during the alleged incident. PW.8, a shadow witness, did not witness a demand for illegal gratification.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the prosecution could not prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond a reasonable doubt. The lack of credible evidence led the Court to conclude that the Trial Court's findings were unjustified.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellants argued that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance, which the Court found persuasive. The prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish guilt.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof required to establish the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act.

2. Appreciation of Electronic Evidence

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The admissibility of electronic evidence is governed by Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer emphasized the need for a certificate under Section 65-B for electronic evidence to be admissible.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that the electronic evidence presented by the prosecution was not supported by a Section 65-B certificate, rendering it inadmissible.

Key Evidence and Findings: The prosecution's electronic evidence, including conversations recorded on a memory card, lacked a certificate under Section 65-B. Witnesses did not testify to the authenticity of the electronic evidence.

Application of Law to Facts: The absence of a Section 65-B certificate meant the electronic evidence could not be relied upon. The Court criticized the Trial Court for considering this inadmissible evidence.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The prosecution's argument that the electronic evidence was credible was dismissed due to the lack of compliance with legal requirements.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the Trial Court erred in relying on inadmissible electronic evidence.

3. Justification of Conviction

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: A conviction under the P.C. Act requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that the Trial Court's conviction was based on insufficient evidence and a misappreciation of the law regarding electronic evidence.

Key Evidence and Findings: The lack of credible evidence of demand and acceptance, coupled with inadmissible electronic evidence, undermined the Trial Court's conviction.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the legal standards for conviction under the P.C. Act and found the Trial Court's findings unjustifiable.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellants' arguments regarding the insufficiency of evidence were upheld, while the prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence was deemed inadequate.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the conviction was unjustified and should be set aside.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court's significant holdings include:

- The demand and acceptance of illegal gratification were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as required under Section 7 of the P.C. Act.

- The electronic evidence was inadmissible due to the lack of a Section 65-B certificate, and the Trial Court erred in considering it.

- The conviction based on insufficient evidence and misappreciation of the law was unjustified.

Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the necessity of proving demand and acceptance for convictions under the P.C. Act and the importance of complying with evidentiary requirements for electronic evidence.

Final Determinations: The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants of all charges.