2023 (6) TMI 1356 - HC - Indian Laws

Bombay HC overturns corruption conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) citing lack of credible evidence for bribe demand

The Bombay HC allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court found that ... Demand of illegal gratification or not - HELD THAT:- In the facts of the case, it was held that there are no circumstances brought on record which will prove the demand for gratification. Therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of P.C Act were not established and consequently the offence u/s.13(1)(d) will not be attracted. In the present case the complainant has deposed before the Court. His evidence does not inspire confidence. Evidence of panch witness is not reliable to prove the demand and acceptance of amount as illegal gratification. The foundation of charge itself is not established. No other circumstances can be relied upon to convict the appellant for the offences for which he is charged. The prosecution has failed to establish the demand and acceptance of bribe - the conviction is required to be set aside - appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Demand of Bribe2. Acceptance of Bribe3. Reliability of EvidenceSummary:1. Demand of Bribe:The prosecution alleged that the appellant, working as Talathi, demanded Rs. 500/- from the complainant for mutating his name in the revenue records. The complainant claimed the first demand was made in January 2000 and the second on 1st March 2000. However, the court found discrepancies in the complainant's testimony and noted that the demand in January 2000 was not mentioned in the complaint, making it an omission. The alleged demand on 1st March 2000 lacked corroborative evidence, and the evidence presented was deemed unreliable.2. Acceptance of Bribe:The prosecution's case included a raid conducted on 3rd March 2000, where the appellant allegedly accepted Rs. 300/- from the complainant. The court scrutinized the evidence, including the testimony of panch witnesses and the complainant, and found inconsistencies. The defense argued that the money was for investment in a government scheme, supported by PW-3's testimony about such schemes. The court found this defense plausible and noted that the prosecution failed to prove the acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.3. Reliability of Evidence:The court examined the testimonies of the complainant (PW-1), panch witness (PW-2), and other witnesses. The complainant's evidence was found to be shaky and unreliable. The panch witness's testimony did not conclusively prove the demand or acceptance of bribe. The court emphasized that mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient without proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The court referenced multiple precedents, including Suraj Mal Vs. State (Delhi Administration) and State of Punjab Vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma, reiterating that demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constituting an offence under the P.C. Act.Conclusion:The court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts of demand and acceptance of bribe. The evidence presented was inconsistent and did not inspire confidence. The appellant's defense regarding the government scheme was found to be probable. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.Order:(i) Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2007 is allowed and disposed of.(ii) The impugned Judgment and Order dated 12th January 2007 passed by Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Nashik in Special Case (ACB) No. 9 of 2000 is set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of all charges.