In a recent case, the Supreme Court dealt in an appeal filed by the State of Karnataka, against the acquittal of the Respondent by the High Court, who had been convicted by the trial court for demanding and accepting a bribe. The complainant had recorded a conversation with the respondent demanding a bribe for passing a bill, leading to a trap where the respondent was caught accepting the bribe. The High Court had acquitted the respondent, but the Supreme Court, after analysing the evidence and legal provisions, found the acquittal to be erroneous and restored the trial court’s conviction.
Brief Facts:
Subhashchandra S. Alur, a Second Division Assistant at Shri Mahanteshwar High School in Kalaburagi, filed a complaint on 05.08.2009, alleging that the respondent, a First Division Assistant at the Sub Treasury Office, demanded a bribe of Rs. 2,000 to pass a bill for surrender leave salary. After recording a conversation with the respondent on 30.07.2009, the complainant handed it to the Lokayukta Police, leading to a trap on 05.08.2009 where the respondent was caught accepting the bribe. The respondent was convicted by the trial court, but the High Court acquitted him on appeal. The State then filed an appeal against the acquittal.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner argued that the complainant testified that the respondent initially refused to pass the bill but later demanded a bribe to do so. Although the respondent claimed the bill was processed before the trap, no cheque was issued, supporting the prosecution's case. Even if the work was completed, the demand for a bribe still constituted an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The prosecution followed proper procedure, and the evidence, including the seizure of the bribe, justified raising the presumption under Section 20(1). The respondent’s defense of a prior loan transaction was unsupported by reliable evidence. The petitioner argued that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court’s conviction should be upheld, as the High Court's acquittal was erroneous.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent’s senior counsel argued that the bill was passed on 29.07.2009, and the cheque was prepared on 30.07.2009, leaving no pending work with the respondent on 05.08.2009. Therefore, the respondent did not demand any bribe, as alleged by the prosecution. The High Court, after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, rightly set aside the trial court's conviction. The respondent contended that the High Court’s decision should not be interfered with by this court.
Observation of the Court:
The Court emphasized the importance of proving the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification for establishing guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Referring to settled law, the Court cited C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI and B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., asserting that it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it was a bribe. The Court noted that "absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence." Additionally, it highlighted the Constitutional Bench decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi), stating that "Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant... is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act."
The Court also emphasized that "mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act……… The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. " The Court reaffirmed that "the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from the presumption of fact."
The Court confirmed that the prosecution had obtained the necessary sanction under Section 19 of the Act and found no procedural irregularities. It noted that the complainant's testimony, corroborated by other witnesses, established the demand and acceptance of the bribe, with the bribe amount being recovered during the trap.
Finally, the Court concluded that the prosecution had proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, stating, "the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3... clearly demonstrated the successful completion of the trap." The Court found the acquittal by the High Court to be "illegal, erroneous, and contrary to the materials on record" and rejected it, emphasizing that "no two views are possible in the matter" when the evidence establishes the demand and acceptance of the bribe.
The decision of the Court:
The Criminal Appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the trial court's conviction. The trial court was directed to take necessary steps to secure the respondent, commit him to prison to serve the remaining sentence, and recover the fine imposed.
Case Title: The State Of Karnataka v. Chandrasha
Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 738 SC
Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 2646 of 2024
Coram: Hon’ble Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice R. Mahadevan
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :