The Orissa High Court expounded that the proof of demand of bribe is the gravamen of the offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as “PCA”).
If such proof is not established, then the charge would fail. Mere acceptance of the amount allegedly by way of bribe or recovery thereof, de hors the proof of demand, ipso facto would not be sufficient for a charge under these sections.
Brief Facts:
The case of the Prosecution was that the complainant had started a project to build staff quarters. After finishing the job, he was paid a specific sum of money. He was, nevertheless, qualified to get an additional sum for which he continually contacted the Respondent, an Assistant Engineer. The Respondent showed little interest in passing the bill and sought Rs. 15,000 as payment for his services which later was reduced to Rs.10,000 on request of the Complainant.
The Complainant filed an FIR after which the police allegedly set up a trap and asked Complainant to hand over tainted money to the Respondent. The trap party collected the allegedly corrupt money from the Respondent’s table and seized it together with the related work file. The chargesheet was filed against the Respondent following the completion of the investigation, receipt of the results of the chemical examination, and approval from the appropriate authority.
The Trial Court found that the Prosecution had not established its case beyond a reasonable doubt after reviewing all the essential evidence in the case. As a result, it gave the Respondent the benefit of the doubt and found him not guilty. Hence, the State has submitted this present petition asking for permission to prefer an appeal against the said judgment of acquittal.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was argued that no money was demanded from the Complainant and that no bribe was received. It was contended that the higher authority, in connivance with the Complainant, had filed a false case.
Contentions of the Vigilance Department:
It was contended that when the Respondent was asked about the receipt of tainted money, he fumbled and could not offer any satisfactory answer as to how the tainted money came under his file. Therefore, as per Section 20 of the PCA, leave should be granted to prefer an appeal.
Observation of the Court:
It was observed that the right of appeal against acquittal must be used cautiously and only in cases of public importance or where a grave miscarriage of justice is present. Further, that order of acquittal can only be interfered with if there it is perverse or unreasonable.
It was opined by the Bench that mere receipt of the amount by the Accused would not be sufficient to fasten the guilt, especially when there is no evidence regarding demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification.
The High Court made it very explicit that it is the Prosecution's job to establish the basic facts namely, the demand, acceptance, and recovery of the alleged bribe money from the Accused first. The statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PCA would only be applicable when these fundamental facts were established. Thereafter, the Accused would then be required to contradict such presumption. Such explanation is to be considered on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond all reasonable doubt.
It was expounded that the proof of demand of bribe is the gravamen of the offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PCA. If such proof is not established, then the charge would fail. Mere acceptance of the amount allegedly by way of bribe or recovery thereof, de hors the proof of demand, ipso facto would not be sufficient for a charge under these sections.
The decision of the Court:
Considering the reasons, the Orissa High Court determined that there was a significant discrepancy regarding the recovery of tainted money from the Accused because no evidence was presented by the Prosecution to show demand and acceptance of the tainted money by the Accused/Respondent.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, and the leave was denied.
Case Title: State of Odisha (Vig.) v. Debasis Dixit
Coram: Hon’ble Justice S.K. Sahoo
Case No: CRLLP No. 26 of 2015
Advocate for Applicant: Adv. Mr. Sangram Das, Standing Counsel (Vigilance)
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Mr. J.K. Panda
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :