Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) – Demand of illegal gratification – Complainant-teacher applied for a validity certificate and for the grant of the same, spot inspection report had to be prepared by the respondentofficer in Taluka Panchayath – Case of the complainant that respondent demanded illegal gratification to submit the report, and the same day the respondent received illegal gratification from the complainant, and thereafter tainted currency notes recovered from the possession of the respondent – Trial court convicted and sentenced the respondent u/ss.7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) – High Court set aside order – Interference: Held: Not called for – Only the version of complainant himself can be said to have some basis with regard to the demand of bribe – Deposition of the prosecution witness being not very coherent and slightly self-contradictory, the benefit thereof has to flow to respondent – For deposition of complainant to be taken as fully reliable and made the sole basis to convict respondent, it would require greater scrutiny apropos its veracity and reliability – Till the date when respondent had conducted the physical/spot inspection, not even a whisper of there being any demand of bribe – Prosecution case itself makes it clear that respondent had informed complainant that he had already forwarded the concerned
Be read as ‘State by Lokayuktha Police’.
file – Thus, there was no occasion for complainant to go ahead with paying the amount after the work for which the bribe was purportedly sought, had already been done – Observation of the High Court correct that just because money changed hands it cannot be ipso facto presumed that the same was pursuant to a demand, for the law requires that for conviction under the Act, an entire chain beginning from demand, acceptance, and recovery has to be completed – When initial demand itself is suspicious, even if two other components can be held to be proved, the chain would not be complete – Testimony of complainant does not inspire confidence, his conduct sufficient to render his testimony unreliable – Thus, since factum of demand itself not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the acquittal of respondent cannot be termed perverse or unwarranted – Impugned judgment upheld. [Paras 23-28]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. 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.