Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (3) TMI 1454

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Appellant. The High Court has passed its judgment on the assumption that the money having been recovered from the Appellant, there was demand of illegal gratification. This is not a case where there was circumstantial evidence to prove the demand. If the evidence produced on record by the prosecution is examined in the light of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in NEERAJ DUTTA VERSUS STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) [ 2022 (12) TMI 1490 - SUPREME COURT] , the conviction and sentence of the Appellant cannot be legally sustained. The impugned order passed by the High Court and that of the Trial Court are set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the charges and his bail bond stands discharged - Appeal allowed. - Abhay Sh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tes of ₹ 100/- each to the DSP, Vigilance, who after coating the same with phenolphthalein powder recorded their numbers in the memo and handed over the same again to Jit Singh. Chamkaur Singh was made the shadow witness. It was alleged that the Appellant was arrested red-handed while accepting the illegal gratification. 4. During the course of trial, Jit Singh, Complainant (PW-1) and Chamkaur Singh (PW-2) did not support the prosecution version. They were declared hostile. Usha Kumari, a computer operator in the office of Civil Surgeon (PW-3) deposed that the Appellant was working in the office as cleaner. However, in emergency he could be deputed for discharging other duties also. The death certificate bearing No. 1241787 pertai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y both must be proved to sustain conviction under the Act. In the case in hand, at the most, it can be said that recovery has been proved though that is also seriously doubtful. There is no evidence of demand of illegal gratification. He further submitted that the Appellant was merely working as cleaner in the office, and he was not having any authority either to prepare or deliver the death certificates. Admittedly, he was assigned the duty to prepare the death certificates on 20.10.2003 and in the case in hand the death certificate had been prepared on 17.10.2003. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State submitted that the fact that the phenolphthalein coated currency notes with same serial numbers were recovered from the Ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ut there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. (ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence Under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. (iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the pub .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... roved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the presumption can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the Accused public servant. (g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13(1)(d)(i) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates