2011 (1) TMI 1557 - HC - Customs

Court convicts Respondent under Prevention of Corruption Act based on credible witness testimonies and bribe acceptance.

State Through CBI Versus Satvir Singh

The High Court overturned the trial court's acquittal and convicted the Respondent for the offense under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, ... - Issues Involved:1. Initial demand of bribe on 4th July 1989.2. Subsequent demand of bribe on 7th July 1989.3. Acceptance of bribe on 8th July 1989.4. Reliability of witness testimonies.5. Application of statutory presumption u/s 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.Summary:1. Initial Demand of Bribe on 4th July 1989:The learned trial court acquitted the Respondent on the ground that the initial demand on 4th July 1989 was made by P.S. Saini, and the Respondent was at a distance on both occasions. The High Court found that the factum of initial demand was proved from the testimony of PW2, the Complainant, who stated that both Shri Saini and the Respondent asked him to pay the amount, threatening to seize his articles and harass him for six months if he did not comply.2. Subsequent Demand of Bribe on 7th July 1989:The trial court held that the demand made on telephone on 7th July 1989 was denied by the accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C., and the brother-in-law of the Complainant, who was present during the call, was not examined as a witness. The High Court found this reasoning erroneous, stating that the testimony of the Complainant regarding the telephone demand was credible and did not require corroboration from the brother-in-law, whose testimony would have been hearsay.3. Acceptance of Bribe on 8th July 1989:The trial court disbelieved the subsequent demand and acceptance on the ground that the Complainant turned hostile and PW3, the shadow witness, was a stock witness. The High Court noted that the testimony of a hostile witness is not entirely effaced and can be relied upon for parts that are credible. PW3's testimony, corroborated by scientific evidence and the testimony of PW4 and PW8, proved the demand and acceptance of the bribe. The money was recovered from the cot in the Respondent's drawing room, and the right-hand wash of the Respondent tested positive for phenolphthalein.4. Reliability of Witness Testimonies:The trial court found the testimony of PW3 unreliable due to his involvement in multiple CBI raids. The High Court disagreed, stating that such witnesses cannot be discredited solely for their repeated involvement in CBI cases. The testimony of PW3 was corroborated by other evidence, making it reliable.5. Application of Statutory Presumption u/s 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:The High Court emphasized that once demand and acceptance are proved, the statutory presumption u/s 20 arises, shifting the onus to the Respondent to rebut the presumption. The Respondent's defense that the money was earnest money for acting as an informer was not supported by evidence. The High Court held that the statutory presumption was not rebutted by the Respondent.Conclusion:The High Court found compelling reasons to interfere with the trial court's judgment, setting aside the acquittal. The Respondent was convicted for the offense punishable u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.