Suraj Singh @ Deepak Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1491 Jhar

                                          1              Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.663 of 2020




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                       Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 663 of 2020
                                     ------

[Against the Judgment of Conviction dated 20.10.2020 and Order of Sentence dated 31.10.2020 passed by the Special Judge, A.C.B., Hazaribag in Special Case No.45 of 2014 (CNR No.JHHB 01-0039362014)]

------

Suraj Singh @ Deepak Singh, aged about 39 years, son of Awadhesh Singh, Resident of Amethiya Nagar, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand through Anti-Corruption Bureau ... Respondent

------

            For the Appellant      : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
                                   : Mr. Rishi Raj Verma, Advocate
            For the A.C.B.         : Mr. Suraj Verma, Spl. P.P.
                                         ------

                      PRESENT
                      --------------
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

C.A.V. ON 10.03.2021               PRONOUNCED ON 24.03.2021


Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.     Heard the parties through video conferencing.

                2.           This appeal has been preferred against the

Judgment of Conviction dated 20.10.2020 and Order of Sentence

dated 31.10.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, A.C.B.,

Hazaribag in Special Case No.45 of 2014 (CNR No. JHHB 01-

0039362014) whereby and where under, the learned court below

has held appellant-convict guilty for the offence punishable

under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The

appellant-convict has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.663 of 2020

Imprisonment for three years and nine months and to pay a fine

of Rs.7,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default of payment of

fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the

complainant-P.W.6- Shankarlal Yadav being a driver of a truck

while going in the highway with his truck loaded with pulses,

from Madhya Pradesh to Kolkata, on the way at Atka the co-

accused District Transport Officer, Hazaribag stopped his truck

and took away all the documents of the truck as well as the

driving licence of the complainant and told the complainant to

meet him in his office. The complainant parked his truck in a line

Hotel and went to the office of the co-accused District Transport

Officer. The co-accused District Transport Officer gave one

mobile phone number to the complainant and told the

complainant that the said mobile phone number is of the present

appellant-convict and also told the complainant to meet the

appellant-convict where the appellant- convict calls the

complainant for release of his truck. The complainant then

contacted the appellant-convict and the appellant-convict told

the complainant to come to the District More. When the

complainant went to District More and met the appellant-convict,

the appellant-convict told the complainant that the co-accused

District Transport Officer has said that for the release of his

vehicle the complainant has to pay ₹ 22,000/-. On being asked by

the complainant the appellant-convict informed the complainant 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.663 of 2020

that no receipt will be given to the complainant in respect of the

payment of ₹ 22,000 /-which will be made by the complainant

and in spite of the request of the complainant the appellant-

convict did not return the documents of the vehicle and the

driving licence of the complainant. As the complainant was not

intending to pay the bribe amount, he approached the Vigilance

Bureau by submitting a written application. On the basis of the

written application of the complainant, P.W.2 conducted

verification and finding the allegation of the written application

to be true, the P.W.2 submitted his report. On the basis of the

same, the F.I.R. of this case has been registered and a trap team

was constituted. A successful trap was made on 11.11.2014, at the

office of the District Transport Officer, Hazaribagh and the

appellant-convict was caught red-handed after accepting the

bribe of ₹ 19,000/-on behalf of the co-accused District Transport

Officer. The post trap formalities were done. The P.W.7 being the

I.O. of the case took charge of the investigation and after

completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet. Charge for

the offence punishable under section 8 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against the appellant-convict

and upon his denying the charge, he was put to trial.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution has altogether examined

ten witnesses besides proving documents. No evidence was

adduced on behalf of the appellant-convict.

5. P.W.6- Shankarlal Yadav is the complainant of this case.

He has been declared hostile on the prayer of the prosecution as 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.663 of 2020

he did not support the case of the prosecution. Before being

declared hostile, the P.W.6 has stated that he has not submitted

any application against anybody in the Vigilance Bureau,

Hazaribagh. He did not deposit the bribe amount in the office of

Vigilance Bureau. No raid was conducted in his presence nor

bribe money was seized. None has demanded any bribe from

him. He did not admit the leading questions put to him by the

prosecution after being declared hostile. In his cross-

examination, the P.W.6 has stated that he never came to

Hazaribagh before his deposition in Court.

6. P.W.-2 Lal Narayan Gupta is a retired Deputy

Superintendent of Police of Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi. He has

stated about the complaint made by the P.W.6 and upon

verification on 08.11.2014 at the office of District Transport

Officer, Hazaribag he found the allegations made by the

complainant was true. The P.W.2 was a member of the trap team.

He narrated in detail about the pre-trap preparations. He further

stated that on 11.11.2014, the PW6 at about 14.30 hours entered

the office chamber of the District Transport Officer, Hazaribagh

and came out immediately and gave the pre-determined signal.

The PW 2 and PW 4 immediately entered inside the official the

chamber of the D.T.O. The PW2 caught hold of the right hand of

the appellant-convict and the PW 4 caught hold of his left hand.

The appellant-convict was holding notes of ₹ 1000/-

denomination and disclosed his identity. Upon the fingers of the

hands of the appellant-convict being washed in the solution of 5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.663 of 2020

sodium carbonate, the colour of the solution turned the pink.

Thereafter, the investigating officer seized a mobile phone from

the appellant-convict. In his cross-examination the PW 2 has

stated that PW4 was standing closest to him at the place of

occurrence. He reached the place of occurrence half a minute

after the signal was given by the PW6. He does not know what

happened prior to his reaching the place of occurrence. He has

not seen anybody giving or taking bribe.

7. PW 4 Kishore Tirkey was also a member of the raiding

team. He has stated in detail about the pre-trap preparations. He

then stated that on 11.11.2014 at 2:30 PM the complainant came

out of the office of D.T.O and signaled by scratching his head. At

which, the PW4 reached the office of D.T.O. There the verifying

officer was catching hold of the hand of a person, who was

trying to get himself released. The PW4 caught hold of the left

hand of that person. By that time all the members of the trap

team and persons of nearby places assembled there. In presence

of the 2 independent witnesses and the special magistrate, on

being asked the said person disclosed himself to be the

appellant-convict of this case. On being searched by the

witnesses 19 currency notes of ₹ 1000/- denomination each i.e. in

total rupees 19,000/- was seized and on being compared the

same tallied with the denomination and the numbers of the notes

mentioned in the G.C. notes memorandum. He then stated about

the hands of the appellant-convict being washed with sodium

carbonate solution the colour of the solution turned pink. He has 6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.663 of 2020

also stated about the post trap formalities including seizure of

documents in 3 different trunks from the office of D.T.O. In his

cross-examination the PW4 stated that it is a fact that he has not

seen anybody taking the bribe at the place of occurrence.

8. PW3 Awadhesh Kumar Singh has stated that he was

posted as D.S.P, in Anti-Corruption Bureau Ranchi on 10.11.2014.

He has also stated in detail about the pre-trap preparations. He

then stated that the PW2 was instructed to be the Shadow

witness. He was also a member of the trap team. They reached

Hazaribag on 11.11.2014. At about 15 hours, the complainant

went to the office of DTO and saw that the appellant-convict is

present in the office and demanded bribe of ₹ 19,000/- and the

PW 6 gave and came out and signalled by scratching his head, at

which all the members of the trap team went near and the PW2

caught hold of the right hand of the appellant-convict who was

keeping the money in his fist and his left hand was caught hold

of by the PW4. In the meanwhile, the PW3 and the special

magistrate as well as the investigating officer reached there. The

search of the appellant-convict was made in presence of 2

independent witnesses. ₹ 19,000/- was recovered from the fist of

right hand of the appellant-convict which consisted of 19 notes of

₹ 1000/- denomination each and upon compared the numbers

tallied with the G.C.notes memorandum. He has also stated

about the post trap formalities including the colour of sodium

carbonate solution turning pink upon the hands of the appellant-

convict being washed with the said solution. The appellant 7 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.663 of 2020

convict stated that he took the bribe on being told by the DTO

and he gets ₹ 200 to ₹ 500 out of the bribe amount. In his cross-

examination PW3 has stated that he did not get any opportunity

to read any document. Only he found the denomination

numbers of the G.C.notes to be true and reading the same as well

as finding the same to be true he put his signature. He has not

seen the complainant giving the bribe at the place of occurrence.

After watching the movement of other members of the trap team,

the PW3 reached at the place of occurrence after about 5 minutes.

He cannot say as to whether he has seen anybody demanding

bribe or giving and taking the same or not.

9. PW1- Santosh Kumar Pandey is one of the independent

witnesses of seizure. He had gone to the DTO office in

connection with his personal work and they came to know that a

raid was conducted by the Vigilance Bureau. He saw that the

appellant-convict was caught by the police personnel. Rupees

19,000/- was recovered from the appellant-convict. Each note

was of ₹ 1000/- denomination. PW1 was made to sign on the

recovered notes. Upon hands of the appellant-convict being

washed with the solution the colour of the solution turned pink.

He identified the seizure list in connection with the seizure of

Samsung mobile phone. He was declared hostile and even

though the prosecution was permitted to put leading questions

to him still he did not support the suggestions of the prosecution.

He further stated that he doesn't know the appellant-convict. In

his cross-examination he had stated that he is the owner of a 8 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.663 of 2020

truck.

10. PW5 Shankar Singh has stated that on 11.11.2014 he had

come to DTO office for the release of his vehicle. When he was in

the DTO office, his signatures were obtained. Since there was a

heavy rush hence he could not know who was caught. He was

not examined before his deposition in court. He does not know

the appellant-convict. He identified his signature on the F I R. He

was also declared hostile on the prayer of the state but he did not

admit the suggestions of the prosecution put to him by way of

his cross examination. In his cross examination by the defence

the PW5 had stated that he does not know as to what was

written on the paper signed by him. In his presence no one was

arrested.

11. PW 7 Jitendra Dubey is the investigating officer of this

case. He has stated about the pre-trap preparations. He also

stated that on 11.11.2014 along with all the members of the trap

team he reached the Transport Office of Hazaribagh. The

members concealing their identity stood here and there. In the

meanwhile, the complainant went to the office of the Transport

Officer. After some time he signalled by scratching his head. On

receiving the signal the officers of the trap team entered inside

the office. He has also stated about the post trap formalities in

detail. He further stated about the investigations done by him in

connection with this case. After getting evidence against the

appellant-convict, he submitted the charge sheet. In his cross-

examination PW 7 has stated that he did not ask for nor seen any 9 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.663 of 2020

document regarding the identity of the PW6. He has not seen

anybody taking or giving bribe. From the place of occurrence the

documents of 3 vehicles were seized but those documents were

not the documents of the vehicle bearing number WB 23 B 7097.

The PW6 did not say before him that on 11.11.2014 he had been

to the DTO office of Hazaribagh where the appellant-convict on

demanding PW6 gave 19 notes of ₹ 1000/- denomination each.

He did not record the statement of PW 6 after the occurrence.

12. PW8 Arjun Gope is a formal witness. He produced this

seized material exhibits in court.

13. PW9 Birendra Kumar is the Assistant Settlement Officer

who went with the raiding team. He has deposed that the PW6

went near the appellant-convict, met him, scratched his head and

then the members of the trap team went and caught hold of the

appellant-convict. On search of the appellant-convict being made

₹ 19,000/- was recovered and on comparing the number of the

notes with the numbers mentioned in the G.C.note, the same

were found to be true. In his cross-examination the PW9 has

stated that he has not seen anybody signaling by scratching his

head. When he reached the place of occurrence he saw the

members of the team on the veranda.

14. PW 10 Kapildeo Kumar Singh was the Khalasi of the

truck. He has no knowledge about the occurrence. He stated that

no occurrence took place with him. He did not give any

statement to the investigating officer in connection with this case.

He was declared hostile but he did not support the suggestions 10 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.663 of 2020

given to him by the prosecution.

15. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the

statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellant-convict was

recorded regarding the circumstances appearing in evidence

against the appellant-convict, wherein he denied the allegation

of demand and acceptance of bribe and also denied all the

allegations against him and pleaded innocence.

16. The learned trial court after taking into consideration the

evidence in the record held the appellant guilty for the offence

punishable under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 and convicted and sentenced him as already indicated

above in this judgment.

17. Mr. Anil Kumar Kashyap, the learned senior counsel for

the appellant-convict submitted that the learned court below

failed to appreciate the fact that there is absolutely no evidence

in the record regarding the handing over of the alleged general

currency notes to the appellant-accused as bribe. Mr. Kashyap

further submitted that to bring home the charge for the offence

punishable under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988, as it was prior to the amendment made by the Prevention

of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, which reads as under

8. Taking gratification, in order, by corrupt or illegal means, to influence public servant.--Whoever accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept, or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever as a motive or reward for inducing, by corrupt or illegal means, any public servant, whether named or otherwise, to do or to forbear to do any official act, or in the exercise of the official functions of such public servant to show favour or disfavour to any person, or to render or attempt to render any 11 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.663 of 2020

service or disservice to any person with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than [three years] but which may extend to [seven years] and shall also be liable to fine.

the essential ingredients are the demand, acceptance and the

recovery of the bribe amount from a person who may not be a

public servant but who has accepted the gratification as a motive

or reward for inducing, by corrupt or illegal means, any public

servant.

18. In support of his contention, Mr. Kashyap relied

upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the

case of Krishan Chander v. State of Delhi, reported in (2016) 3

SCC 108, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reiterated

the settled principle of law regarding the ingredients of inter-alia

section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in paragraph

no.35 as under:-

"35. It is well settled position of law that the demand for the bribe money is sine qua non to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The same legal principle has been held by this Court in the case of B. Jayaraj (supra), A. Subair (supra) and P. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra) upon which reliance is rightly placed by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant.

36. The relevant paragraph 7 from B. Jayaraj case (supra) reads thus:

"7. In so far as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several 12 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.663 of 2020

judgments of this Court. By way of illustration reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI." (emphasis supplied) In the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra), it was held by this Court as under:

"21. In State of Kerala and another vs. C.P. Rao, this Court, reiterating its earlier dictum, vis-à-vis the same offences, held that mere recovery by itself, would not prove the charge against the accused and in absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused had voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, conviction cannot be sustained."

And submitted that the same principle of law will also be applicable to the offences punishable under section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as the verbatim of section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 so far as it relates to accepting or obtaining bribe is pari materia with the verbatim of section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in this respect Mr Kashyap draws attention of the court to section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which reads as under:-

7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act.--Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than [three years] but which may extend to [seven years] and shall also be liable to fine.

19. Mr. Kashyap next relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.R. Purushotham v. State of Karnataka (2014 AIR SCW 5740) wherein in the facts of that case of course relating to an offence punishable under section 7 read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 13 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.663 of 2020

as the complainant did not support the case of demand of bribe and was declared hostile, it was observed as under :

"When PW1 Ramesh himself had disowned what he has stated in his initial complaint in Exh.P1 before PW4 Inspector Santosh Kumar and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW3 Kumaraswamy and the contents of Exh.P1 complaint cannot be relied upon to conclude that the said material furnishes proof of demand allegedly made by the accused."

In respect of this principle of law learned senior counsel for the appellant-convict also relied upon judgments of this Court in the case of Priyanka Kumari versus State of Jharkhand 2020 (3) Eastern Criminal Cases 297 Jharkhand and Bhim Singh versus State of Jharkhand 2020 (3) Eastern Criminal Cases 309 Jharkhand wherein in the facts of those cases where the offence involved was under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and where there was no evidence regarding demand of bribe by the appellants of those appeals, this Court set aside the conviction of the appellants and acquitted them by giving them the benefit of doubt relying upon the aforesaid settled principle of law.

Mr Kashyap next relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Trilok Chand Jain v. State of Delhi, (1975) 4 SCC 761 and submits that as the appellant was engaged by the DTO hence it cannot be said that the alleged money was received by the appellant for the purpose of the motive or reward for inducing, by corrupt or illegal means, any public servant rather it is the other way round that the public servant engaged the appellant to collect the gratification for him from the complainant hence on this account also the essential ingredients of section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not made out against the appellant.

20. Mr. Kashyap further submitted that the falsity of entire trap proceedings stands exposed from the fact that the PW6-complainant in his deposition has categorically stated that 14 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.663 of 2020

he never approached any authority for the alleged demand of bribe and he never gave any such statement as is attributed to him to have been given to police and he even went to the extent of stating that neither any raid was conducted in his presence nor any money was recovered. It is then submitted that as is evident from the case of the prosecution which has come through the depositions of the witnesses examined by the prosecution in this case only the PW6 had the occasion to depose regarding the demand made by the appellant-convict and rest of the witnesses including the members of the trap team have categorically stated that they have not seen giving or taking of money by the appellant-convict.

21. Mr. Kashyap then submitted that in this case there is absolutely no evidence regarding the demand of illegal gratification. Therefore it is submitted that no offence punishable under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is made out. It is then submitted that evidence of mere recovery of tainted money with the post trap formalities is by itself is not sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 so it is submitted that the appellant-convict be acquitted of the charge by at least giving him the benefit of doubt. It is lastly submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the charge.

22. Mr. Suraj Verma, learned counsel for the Anti-Corruption Bureau on the other hand defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that as the P.W.2 has categorically stated about the facts of the case and his testimony which is corroborated by the testimony of the other prosecution witnesses; are sufficient enough to establish the charge for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mr. Verma relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Devan alias Vasudevan v. The State reported in 1988 CRI. L. J. 1005 and 15 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.663 of 2020

submitted that the gravamen of the offence punishable under section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is acceptance of or attempting to obtain the illegal gratification as a motive or reward for inducing a public servant by corrupt and illegal means and it is not necessary that the recipient of the gratification should in fact have induced the public servant. The receipt of gratification as a motive or reward for the purpose of inducing the public servant by corrupt or illegal means will complete the offence and equally it is necessary that the accused should have had the animus or intent at the time he received the gratification that it is received as a motive or reward for inducing the public servant by corrupt and illegal means and such intention can be inferred from the evidence in each case. Mr Verma next relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parkash Singh Badal and Anr. versus State of Punjab & Ors. (2007) 1 SCC 1 wherein it was held by the Court that a public servant can also be held guilty for the offence punishable under section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 if such public servant receives illegal gratification as a motive or reward for inducing other public servant by corrupt or illegal means. It is lastly submitted by Mr. Verma that as the learned trial court, taking into consideration the evidence in the record has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant-convict, hence there being no merit in this appeal, the same be dismissed.

23. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the evidence in the record, it is crystal clear that there is absolutely no evidence in the record regarding the demand or acceptance of money by the appellant-convict on the alleged date of occurrence on 11.11.2014 for the occurrence of which date the appellant-accused faced the trial. There is no shadow witness who accompanied the P.W.6- the complainant at the time of alleged handing over of the bribe amount. Though the P.W.3 made an effort by projecting the P.W.2 as the shadow witness but the said solitary testimony of the P.W.3 will not cut 16 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.663 of 2020

any ice as the P.W.2 himself has not claimed to be a shadow witness rather the P.W.2 as well as all the other witnesses of the prosecution who were the members of the trap team have categorically stated that the P.W.6 alone went to the appellant- convict who was present at the relevant time in the official chamber of the DTO and only after he came out and signal others went to the PW2 and PW4 being the persons who caught hold of the hands of the appellant-convict. So far as the judgment of Devan alias Vasudevan v. The State (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the Anti-Corruption Bureau is concerned, true it is that it is not necessary that the person who received the gratification should have succeeded in inducing the public servant. It is not even necessary that the recipient of the gratification should, in fact, have attempted to induce the public servant. The receipt of gratification as a motive or reward for the purpose of inducing the public servant by corrupt or illegal means will complete the offence and it is necessary that the accused should have had the animus or intent, at the time when he receives gratification that it is received as a motive or reward for inducing a public servant by corrupt or illegal means. But the moot question is whether the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish that the appellant-convict was the recepient of gratification as a motive or reward for the purpose of inducing the public servant DTO by corrupt or illegal means?

24. In paragraph 53 in the case of Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India summarised the ingredients of the offence punishable under section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as under:

53. If Section 8 is analytically dissected then it would read as below:

(i) Whoever

(ii) accepts or obtains gratification from any person

(iii) for inducing any public servant (by corrupt or illegal means)

(iv) to render or attempt to render any services or disservice (etc.)

(v) with any public servant (etc.) 17 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.663 of 2020

Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is complementary to section 7 of that Act and is intended to reach aiders and abetters of the offence. It, therefore, extends to all persons whether or not they are public servants. The words "accepts or obtains" appears in both section 7 as well as 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is by now a settled principle of law that the unsolicited payment of money in the absence of any demand for that does not constitute "accepts or obtains" as envisaged in section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and for establishing "accepts or obtains" as envisaged in the said section 7 it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused has demanded the gratification; the reason being it could not have been the intention of the legislature that if an accused has received gratification he will be convicted without taking into consideration, whether he actually demanded any kind of gratification because this would result in putting the innocent ones behind bars; who didn't even know about such circumstances or have been trapped. So, in order to fulfill the purpose of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 proof of demand has been made an indispensable requirement for an offence under Section 7 and 13 of the Act and it has been held that mere possession or recovery of the currency notes from the accused does not satisfy the demand for illegal gratification to constitute the said offence. The same analogy will be squarely applicable to the offences punishable under section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 also. Thus in view of the settled principles of law as discussed above and relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the appellant-convict which in no uncertain terms has laid down the law that the demand for the bribe money is sine qua non to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, this court has no hesitation in holding basing upon the same analogy that the demand for the bribe money by the accused person is also sine qua non to convict the 18 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.663 of 2020

accused for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption, 1988 as well and mere recovery of tainted money by itself without any proof of demand is insufficient to establish the charge for the offence punishable under section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

24. The P.W.6 who was the sole witness as per the case of the prosecution regarding the demand of bribe by the appellant- convict from him, could have stated about the demand of bribe made by the appellant-convict on 11.11.2014 for the occurrence of which date the appellant-convict faced the trial. But the PW 6 has categorically stated that he never approached any authority for the alleged demand of bribe and he never gave any such statement as is attributed to him to have been given to police and he further stated that neither any raid was conducted in his presence nor any money was recovered. The rest of the witnesses including the members of the trap team have categorically stated that they have not seen giving or taking of money by the appellant-convict and the PW3 has stated that he cannot say whether he had seen giving and taking of bribe. There is nothing on record to disbelieve this testimony of the P.W.6 that he did not give any money to the appellant-accused. No other witness has deposed about the demand of money by the appellant-convict on 11.11.2014 as none of the other witnesses has claimed to be an eyewitness of the P.W.6 handing over of the alleged bribe amount to the appellant-convict. In the absence of such evidence regarding the essential ingredients of demand on 11.11.2014, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish the charge for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the appellant-convict beyond a reasonable doubt and this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the appellant- accused be acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt.

25. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment of Conviction dated 20.10.2020 and Order of Sentence dated 31.10.2020 passed by the 19 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.663 of 2020

learned Special Judge, A.C.B., Hazaribag in Special Case No.45 of 2014 (CNR No. JHHB 01-0039362014) is set aside and appellant- convict namely Suraj Singh @ Deepak Singh is acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt.

26. Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant-accused namely Suraj Singh @ Deepak Singh is in custody. In view of his acquittal, he is directed to be released from custody unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

27. In the result, this appeal is allowed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 24th of March, 2021 AFR/ Sonu-Gunjan/-