Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) – Accused was functioning as a lower division clerk in the Passport Office – Allegation against the accused that he required complainant to pay Rs.200 as gratification amount over and above the lawful amount of Rs.1000 – The Trial Court convicted the accused upon finding that lodging of complaint and delivery of tainted money was duly proved by the prosecution – The conviction of the accused was upheld by the High Court – Whether a benefit of doubt can be given to the accused: Held: 1. In the instant case, the complainant-PW-1 has not supported demand and insofar as receipt of extra Rs.200 is concerned, there was no reliable evidence – Therefore, in view of this Court, this was a fit case where benefit of doubt had to be given to the accused. [Para 12]
2. In the case on hand, in paragraph 20 of the impugned judgment, the High Court has noticed the statement of PW-1 wherein he stated that he was misled by one person, who was employed in the CBI, that the accused was a corrupt person and even though several attempts were made by the CBI to trap him, they were not successful – That person sought assistance of PW1 to trap the officer – In view of this Court, when this was the statement of PW1 courts were required to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence – In such circumstances, when the complainant had not supported the prosecution case during trial regarding demand of bribe money, the trial court and the appellate court were required to meticulously consider, particularly in the context of defense taken by the accused in his statement u/s.313 CRPC, whether the accused at the time of accepting the money was aware that it was in excess of the lawful fee payable for the passport – No other evidence was brought by the prosecution against the accused – It is the defense of the accused that he was not aware that there were two Rs.100 notes extra than what were to be deposited for the purposes of applying for a passport – In such circumstances, it was obligatory upon the Court to consider the defense of the accused seriously. [Para 11]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. 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.