2015 (5) TMI 1255 - SC - Indian Laws

Conviction upheld under Sections 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act despite no mandatory recovery requirement

SC upheld conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Court held that mere recovery of tainted ... Illegal Gratification - Bribe - rebuttal of presumption - conviction Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act - HELD THAT:- Mere recovery of the tainted amount is not a sine qua non for holding a person guilty Under Sections 7, 11 and 13 of the Act. This Court has observed in NARENDRA CHAMPAKLAL TRIVEDI & HARJIBHAI DEVJIBHAI CHAUHAN VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT [2012 (5) TMI 603 - SUPREME COURT], that there has to be evidence adduced by the prosecution that bribe was demanded or paid voluntarily as bribe. The demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution is duty bound to establish that there was illegal offer of bribe and acceptance thereof and it has to be founded on facts. In the present case the factum of demand and acceptance has been proved by the recovery of the tainted amount and the factum of there being a demand has also been stated. The essential ingredient of demand and acceptance has been proved by the prosecution based on the factum of the case. It has been witnessed by the key eye witnesses and their testimonies have also been corroborated by other material witnesses. The offence Under Section 7 of P.C. Act has been confirmed by the unchallenged recovery of the tainted amount. Thus, it is the obligation to raise the presumption mandated by Section 20 of P.C. Act. It is for the accused Respondent to rebut the presumption, by adducing direct or circumstantial evidence, that the money recovered was not a reward or motive as mentioned Under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. Thus, the accused Respondent has not successfully rebutted the presumption Under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. The prosecution, on the other hand, has established the demand and acceptance of the tainted money. The recovery also has gone unchallenged. The appeal is allowed. Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of the High Court's acquittal of the accused.2. Validity of the evidence presented by the prosecution.3. Application of Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.4. Rebuttal of the presumption of guilt by the accused.5. Allegations of bias and improper motivation for the trap.Detailed Analysis:1. Legitimacy of the High Court's Acquittal:The appeal challenges the High Court's judgment that set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused, who was acquitted of charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court disbelieved the testimony of key witnesses and found the prosecution's case unconvincing, thus acquitting the accused.2. Validity of the Evidence Presented by the Prosecution:The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimonies of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 7, and P.W. 8. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were eyewitnesses to the demand and acceptance of the bribe, while P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 were mediators and part of the raiding party. The evidence presented showed that the accused demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 500/- for registering a Will deed. The phenolphthalein test confirmed the presence of the tainted money on the accused's hands, corroborating the prosecution's narrative.3. Application of Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act:The Supreme Court emphasized that under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, once the prosecution proves the demand and acceptance of a bribe, a presumption of guilt arises. It is then the responsibility of the accused to rebut this presumption. The Court noted that the prosecution had successfully established the demand and acceptance of the tainted money.4. Rebuttal of the Presumption of Guilt by the Accused:The accused argued that mere recovery of the money was insufficient to prove guilt and that the phenolphthalein test was not conclusive evidence of accepting a bribe. The defense also suggested that the trap was a result of inimical relations and that the complainant had no need to execute a Will deed. However, the Supreme Court found these arguments unconvincing and noted that the accused failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of guilt under Section 20.5. Allegations of Bias and Improper Motivation for the Trap:The defense suggested that the trap was orchestrated due to hostile relations with certain document writers. However, the Supreme Court dismissed this as a far-fetched theory, unsupported by any direct or circumstantial evidence. The Court also noted that the High Court's reasoning regarding the necessity of the Will deed and the complainant's financial status did not undermine the prosecution's case.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in acquitting the accused. The prosecution had established the essential elements of demand and acceptance of the bribe, corroborated by reliable witness testimonies and the phenolphthalein test. The accused failed to rebut the presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Consequently, the Supreme Court restored the conviction and sentence imposed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, sentencing the accused to rigorous imprisonment for one year under each count and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under each count, with default sentences of simple imprisonment for two months under each count. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's acquittal was set aside.