Recently, the Delhi High Court dealt with an appeal challenging the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case revolves around allegations of bribery during police duty and raises important questions about proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, especially in the absence of the complainant’s testimony.
Brief Facts:
The prosecution alleged that on July 1994, the accused, while posted at Mehrauli Police Station, was involved in an incident where the complainant Narender Kumar was stopped during a police check at Aya Nagar. His identity card was allegedly taken by police officials, and he was asked to pay Rs.1,000 for its return. Subsequently, the complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Branch and lodged a complaint. Based on this, a trap was arranged. During the trap proceedings, the complainant allegedly handed over Rs. 1,000 to the accused, which was accepted and recovered from him in the presence of witnesses. Chemical tests also confirmed contact with the tainted currency. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the trial court convicted the accused under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, sentencing him to imprisonment and fine. Aggrieved by this conviction, the accused filed an appeal before the High Court.
Contentions of the Appellant :
The counsel for the Appellant primarily challenged the conviction on evidentiary and legal grounds. It was argued that the complainant, who was the most crucial witness to prove demand and acceptance of bribe, was never examined during the trial as he remained untraceable. This, according to the appellant, created a serious gap in the prosecution’s case. It was further contended that the testimony of the shadow witness (PW5) was unreliable and did not properly corroborate the alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The defence also questioned the validity of the sanction for prosecution, arguing that it had been granted by an अधिकारी who was not competent to do so under the law. Additionally, the Appellant denied all allegations, asserting that no bribe was ever demanded or accepted and that he had been falsely implicated. It was claimed that the raid was actually intended for another police official, and the present case was fabricated to justify the failed operation.
Contentions of the Respondents:
On the other hand, the State argued that the trial court’s judgment was well-reasoned and did not suffer from any legal infirmity. It was submitted that all relevant evidence had been properly appreciated and that the conviction was based on credible material on record. The prosecution emphasised that even though the complainant was not examined, the demand and acceptance of bribe were sufficiently proved through the testimony of the panch witness and other supporting evidence, including recovery of tainted money. It was argued that the absence of the complainant does not automatically vitiate the case. The State further contended that the sanction for prosecution was validly granted by a competent authority and that all procedural requirements had been duly complied with. Therefore, no interference by the High Court was warranted
Observation of the Court :
The Court closely examined whether the prosecution had successfully proved the essential ingredients of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
The Court reiterated the settled legal position that mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient unless demand is proved as a foundational fact. It observed that “Mere acceptance of illegal gratification, in the absence of proof of demand, would not be sufficient to bring home the guilt…”
Addressing the key issue of non-examination of the complainant, the Court clarified that such absence is not fatal to the prosecution case. Relying on precedent, it held that “…the non-examination of the informant does not, by itself, preclude the prosecution from establishing the offence…”
The Court placed significant reliance on the testimony of the panch witness (PW5), holding it to be credible and sufficient. It emphasised that “Evidence has to be weighed and not counted, and conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness if found wholly reliable.” On facts, the Court found that both demand and acceptance were clearly established, particularly through the consistent testimony of PW and recovery of tainted money from the accused.
Further, the Court invoked the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, observing that “…once the demand and acceptance stand duly proved… the statutory presumption… stands invoked and shifts the burden upon the accused.” The accused, however, failed to rebut this presumption with any plausible explanation. On the issue of sanction, the Court rejected the appellant’s argument and held that the sanctioning authority was competent under the Delhi Police Act.
The decision of the Court :
The High Court found no infirmity in the trial court’s judgment. It held that the prosecution had successfully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Case Title: Const. Satish Kumar v. State of Delhi
Case No.: CRL.A. 862/2004
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha
Advocate for the Appellant: None
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with SI Bheem Singh, P.S. ACB, GNCT Delhi
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
