2015 (10) TMI 2849 - SC - Indian Laws

Deputy Tahsildar Acquitted: Court Overturns Convictions Due to Insufficient Evidence of Corruption Demand and Acceptance.

The Court set aside the convictions under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, acquitting the Appellant, a Deputy Tahsildar, ... Illegal Gratification - plea of the accused was that target was fixed by the Department to collect contribution for purchase of National Savings Certificate and the amount that was given by the complainant was towards that only - HELD THAT:- The prosecution has not examined any other witness present at the time when the money was demanded by the accused and also when the money was allegedly handed-over to the accused by the complainant. The complainant himself had disowned his complaint and has turned hostile and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand. In short there is no proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. The possession is also admitted by the accused. It is settled law that mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence Under Section 7, since demand of illegal gratification is sine-qua-non to constitute the said offence. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence Under Section 13(1)(d) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established. It is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn Under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Unless there is proof of demand of illegal gratification proof of acceptance will not follow. In the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption Under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent - the conviction of the Appellant Under Section 7 and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and the sentences imposed are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges - Appeal allowed. Issues:Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.Analysis:The judgment pertains to an appeal against a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Appellant, a Deputy Tahsildar, was accused of demanding illegal gratification from a Fair Price Shop dealer. The prosecution alleged that the Appellant demanded money from the complainant, threatening seizure of stocks. The case involved a setup where tainted currency notes were recovered from the accused, leading to charges being framed. During the trial, witnesses provided conflicting testimonies, with the complainant disowning his complaint. The key issue was the lack of concrete evidence regarding the demand for illegal gratification. The Appellant's defense was based on the claim that the money was contributed towards National Savings Certificates, a contention disputed by the prosecution.The Court noted that the complainant did not support the prosecution's case, stating that he gave the money to the accused for purchasing National Savings Certificates. Despite this, the trial court and High Court relied on legal presumptions under Section 20 of the Act to uphold the conviction. However, the Court highlighted that mere possession and recovery of tainted currency notes without proof of demand does not establish the offense under Section 7. The absence of evidence regarding the demand for illegal gratification undermined the prosecution's case. The Court referenced previous judgments emphasizing the necessity of proving both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to establish the offense.Ultimately, the Court found that the primary facts required to invoke the legal presumption under Section 20 were lacking in the case. Consequently, the convictions under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) were set aside, and the Appellant was acquitted of all charges. The judgment emphasized the importance of proving both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to establish offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act.