Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) – Conviction under – When not proper – Complainant (PW-1) lodged FIR against the appellant and co-accused, both employees of Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (DESU) complaining that appellant demanded bribe – The bribe money was not accepted by the appellant, who asked complainant to give it to the co-accused – Trial court acquitted both the accused of the charge of conspiracy u/s.120-B, IPC however, convicted the appellant for offences u/ss.7 and 13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act – High Court affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court – On appeal, held: When the charge against both the accused in relation to conspiracy was not proved and both the accused were acquitted from the said charge which resulted in acquittal of the co-accused from all the charges under the 1988 Act, a fortiori, the appellant too was entitled for his clean acquittal from the charges under the PC Act – Prosecution failed to prove the factum of acceptance of bribe money by the appellant from the complainant as per the charges framed against him – In order to attract the rigors of ss.7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act, the prosecution was under legal obligation to prove the twin requirements of “demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused”, the proving of one alone but not the other was not sufficient – Appellant entitled for acquittal from the charges framed against him under the PC Act too – Impugned judgment set aside – Conviction and the sentence awarded to the appellant u/ss.7, 13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act by the Courts below set aside. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence, held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC against the appellant and the co-accused and accordingly acquitted both of them from the said charge. The co-accused was acquitted from all the charges framed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The State neither challenged the clean acquittal of the co-accused and nor challenged the part acquittal of the appellant in the High Court by filing any appeal. This, therefore, attained finality. [Para 23] [920-F-G]
1.2 When the charge against both the accused in relation to conspiracy was not held proved and both the accused were acquitted from the said charge which, in turn, resulted in clean acquittal of the co-accused from all the charges under the PC Act, a fortiori, the appellant too was entitled for his clean acquittal from the charges under the PC Act. It is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant had conspired with another person and even though the identity of the other person was not established, yet the appellant was held guilty for the offence under Section 120-B IPC. [Paras 25, 26] [921-B-D]
1.3 Once the co-accused so also the appellant stood acquitted in respect of the charge of conspiracy and further the co-accused was also acquitted from the charges under the PC Act, the charges against the appellant must also necessarily fall on the ground. Even assuming that despite the appellant being acquitted of the charge relating to conspiracy and notwithstanding the clean acquittal of the the co-accused from all the charges, the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the appellant under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. [Paras 27, 28] [921-E-F]
1.4 It is for the reason that in order to prove a case against the appellant, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove the twin requirement of “demand and the acceptance of the bribe amount by the appellant”. It was the case of the prosecution in the charge that the appellant did not accept the bribe money but the money was accepted and recovered from the possession of the co-accused. In such circumstances, there is no evidence to prove that the appellant directly accepted the money from the Complainant. Since the plea of conspiracy against the appellant and the co-accused failed, it cannot be held that money (Rs.4000/-) recovered from the possession of the co-accused was as a fact the bribe money meant for the appellant for holding him guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. It is more so when the benefit of such acquittal from the charge of conspiracy was given to the co-accused but was not given to the appellant. [Paras 29, 30] [921-G-H; 922-A-B]
1.5 The prosecution, therefore, failed to prove the factum of acceptance of bribe money of Rs.4000/- by the appellant from the Complainant as per the charges framed against him. Since in order to attract the rigors of Sections 7, 13(2) read 13(1)(d) of PC Act, the prosecution was under a legal obligation to prove the twin requirements of “demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused”, the proving of one alone but not the other was not sufficient. The appellant is, therefore, entitled for acquittal from the charges framed against him under the PC Act too. The conviction and the sentence awarded to the appellant under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act by the Courts below are set aside and the appellant is set free from the said charges. [Paras 31-33] [922-C-F]
Bhagat Ram v. State of Rajasthan (1972) 2 SCC 466 : [1972] 3 SCR 503; M. K. Harshan v. State of Kerala (1996) 11 SCC 720 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.