Soundarajan vs State Rep. by the Inspector of Police Vigilance Anticorruption Dindigul

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

17 April 2023

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 1592 of 2022

Result

Allowed

Bench

Abhay S. Oka, Rajesh Bindal

Citation

[2023] 4 S.C.R. 133 : 2023 INSC 377

Headnote

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 : ss. 7, 13(1)(d), r/w 13(2) – Illegal gratification – Appellant-Sub-Registrar demanded gratification of Rs.500/- from the complainant-PW 2, for handing over the registered sale deed – Complaint filed – Trap laid and in presence of shadow witness PW-3, the appellant caught red-handed while accepting the bribe – However, complainant did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile – Trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences punishable u/s 7 and s. 13(2) r/w s. 13(1)(d) – Upheld by the High Court – On appeal, held : To attract s. 7, the demand for gratification has to be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt – It is not a simple demand for money, but it has to be a demand for gratification – On facts, the complainant did not support the prosecution – In his examination-in-chief, he did not say anything about the demand made by the appellant – PW-3 did not say that the appellant made a specific demand of gratification in his presence to PW-2 – No circumstantial evidence of demand for gratification – Thus, the offences punishable u/s. 7 and s. 13(2) r/w s. 13(1)(d) not established – Furthermore, there was omission or error to frame charge, which may lead to acquittal – Thus, the impugned judgment quashed and set aside – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.464. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 464 – Effect of omission to frame or absence of, or error in, charge – Held: Under s. 464, omission to frame a charge or any error in charge is never fatal unless, in the opinion of the Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby – Instant case is of omission to frame a proper charge, and whatever charge has been framed is, per se defective – However, by reason of the said omission, the accused not prejudiced insofar as his right to defend is concerned. Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2022 SCC online SC 1724 - relied on.

Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar (2011) 9 SCC 272; Union of India v. Ex-GNR Ajeet Singh (2013) 4 SCC 186 referred to.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY S. OKA, J. FACTS 1. The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’). The appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. High Court, by the impugned judgment, has confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant. 2. The appellant was holding the post of Sub-Registrar at Kannivadi, Dindigul District, Tamil Nadu. The complainant M. Sundaramoorthy (PW-2), ha

View Subscription Plans →