Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7 and 13(2) r/w. s.13(1)(d) – Prosecution case was that Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (PW-4) along with A-1, who was then working as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, inspected a grocery shop (owned by father of PW-2) and seized the accounts book – PW-2 approached A-1 to return the accounts book for which A-1 demanded bribe – PW-2 lodged a complaint before Anti-corruption wing – Trap was arranged to catch the accused – Accordingly, PW-2 went to the office of A-1 where A-1 asked him whether he brought the money and when PW2 stated that he brought the money, A-1 asked PW-2 to pay the money to A-2 and directed A-2 to receive the money – Trap team took the sodium carbonate test, which led to arrest of A-1 and A-2 – Trial Court convicted both accused u/ss.7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act, and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years – However, High Court reduced the sentence to one year imprisonment – On appeal, held: PW-2 clearly stated in his statement about demand and acceptance of bribe amount by A-1 and A-2 – PW-3, the accompanying witness clearly supported prosecution case – Furthermore, the evidence of PW-6, the office assistant, also corroborated the version of PW-2 – Courts below, rightly found accused guilty on basis of the evidence of PW-2 and test conducted in the sodium carbonate solution.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. PW-2 clearly stated about the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by A-1 and A-2. PW-3, accompanying witness, though turned hostile, in his ChiefExamination clearly stated that he accompanied PW-2 who went and met A-1 and on the direction of A-1, PW-2 paid the money to A-2. To that extent, the evidence of PW-2 is corroborated by the evidence of PW-3. That apart, the evidence of PW-6, the office assistant, also corroborates the version of PW-2. In his evidence PW-6 has stated that PW-2 went inside the room of A-1 and that A-1 told A-2 that PW-2 would give money and that A-2 must take and keep it with him. Accordingly, PW-2 gave money to A-2 who received the same. Thus, the evidence of PW-2 is corroborated by the evidence of PW-6, the Office Assistant. Based on the evidence of PW-2 and test conducted in the sodium carbonate solution the Trial Court and the High Court had rightly found the appellants-accused guilty of the offences. There were no grounds to take a different view. [Paras 4 and 5][652-G; 653-A-C]
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.