2016 (3) TMI 1000 - HC - Indian Laws

Charge of corruption against the Superintendent of Central Excise, Service Tax Cell, Chennai, Commissionerate - Alleged demand as well as acceptance of tainted money on the part of the appellant/accused - Found guilty under Section 7 and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Held that - by way of examining the defacto complainant viz., PW2 the prosecution has clearly proved the demand of bribe alleged to have been made by the accused as well as acceptance of the same. The evidence given by PW2 has been clearly corroborated by decoy witness viz., PW3. Further the evidence given by PWs.2 and 3 have been clearly corroborated by PW4, trap laying officer. Apart from their evidence, Scientific Analyst has also clearly established the case of the prosecution. Non marking of white cover as well as non playing of micro chip are not fatal to the case of the prosecution and those things are nothing but a piece of evidence and the same cannot be construed as a sole piece of evidence in the present case, since in the present case, both demand as well as acceptance of tainted money on the part of the accused have been clearly proved by the prosecution. Therefore, the contentions put forth on the side of the appellant/accused cannot be a basis for disbelieving the case of the prosecution. Defacto complainant has given picturesque evidence to the effect that the appellant/accused has demanded and accepted tainted money of ₹ 25,000/- and since the said vital aspects have been clearly established on the side of the prosecution, it is very clear that the appellant/accused is liable to be convicted under the sections mentioned in the charge. The trial Court after considering the replete evidence available on record has rightly found the appellant/accused guilty under the sections mentioned in the charge. Therefore, there has neither found any error nor illegality in the convictions and sentences passed by the trial Court. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the prosecution's evidence regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe.
2. Whether the failure to mark the white cover and the microchip as evidence impacts the case.
3. Appropriateness of the trial court's conviction and sentencing under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of the prosecution's evidence regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe.
The prosecution's case is that the accused, a Superintendent of Central Excise, demanded a bribe of Rs. 25,000 from the defacto complainant for clearing a service tax assessment. The defacto complainant, unwilling to pay the bribe, lodged a complaint with the CBI. A trap was arranged, and the accused was caught red-handed accepting the tainted money. The trial court framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The evidence included testimonies from the defacto complainant (PW2), decoy witness (PW3), and the trap laying officer (PW4), all corroborating the demand and acceptance of the bribe. The Scientific Officer (PW6) confirmed the presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate on the tainted money, further supporting the prosecution's case.

Issue 2: Whether the failure to mark the white cover and the microchip as evidence impacts the case.
The defense argued that the prosecution failed to mark the white cover used to hold the tainted money and did not display the microchip recording the conversation between the defacto complainant and the accused. However, the court noted that the absence of these pieces of evidence did not undermine the prosecution's case. The testimonies of PWs 2, 3, and 4, along with the scientific analysis by PW6, were sufficient to establish the demand and acceptance of the bribe. The court emphasized that both demand and acceptance are essential features of Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and these were clearly proven by the prosecution.

Issue 3: Appropriateness of the trial court's conviction and sentencing under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The trial court sentenced the accused to three years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 for each of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The defense cited various judgments to argue that mere possession of tainted money without proof of demand is insufficient for conviction. However, the court found that the prosecution had clearly established both the demand and acceptance of the bribe. The court held that the trial court's judgment was based on a meticulous analysis of the evidence and did not find any error or illegality in the convictions and sentences. Consequently, the criminal appeal was dismissed, and the convictions and sentences were confirmed.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal, confirming the trial court's convictions and sentences. The court held that the prosecution had sufficiently proven the demand and acceptance of the bribe, and the failure to mark the white cover and display the microchip did not affect the case's outcome. The accused was directed to serve the remaining period of the sentence.