Demand of gratification is essential in corruption cases, while a defective charge matters only if it causes actual prejudice.
Proof of demand of gratification is indispensable for offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the presumption under Section 20 arises only after foundational facts of demand and acceptance are established. Where the complainant does not support the prosecution and the evidence does not reliably prove a specific demand, the allied charge under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) also fails. A defect in framing the charge is not fatal under Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 unless it causes actual prejudice or failure of justice; absent such prejudice, the trial is not vitiated.
Issues: (i) Whether the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were proved in the absence of reliable proof of demand of gratification; (ii) Whether the omission to frame a proper charge caused prejudice so as to vitiate the conviction under Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Issue (i): Whether the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were proved in the absence of reliable proof of demand of gratification.
Analysis: Demand of gratification is a sine qua non for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the presumption under Section 20 arises only after the prosecution proves the foundational facts of demand and acceptance. The complainant did not support the prosecution and did not speak to any demand. The shadow witness only stated that the accused asked whether the amount had been brought, which did not amount to proof of a specific demand of gratification. No reliable circumstantial evidence established the demand either. In the absence of proof of demand, the prosecution case could not sustain the charge under Section 7, and the allied charge under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) also failed.
Conclusion: The offences under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were not proved.
Issue (ii): Whether the omission to frame a proper charge caused prejudice so as to vitiate the conviction under Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: An error or omission in framing charge is not fatal unless it results in a failure of justice. Although the charge was defective and did not properly reflect the alleged demand and acceptance on the relevant dates, the record showed that the accused had understood the prosecution case and had cross-examined the witnesses accordingly. Since no prejudice to the defence was established, the defect in charge did not by itself vitiate the trial.
Conclusion: The omission to frame a proper charge was not fatal in the facts of the case.
Final Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained because the prosecution failed to prove demand of gratification, and the defect in charge did not save the prosecution case.
Ratio Decidendi: In a corruption prosecution, proof of demand of gratification is indispensable for conviction, and a defective charge does not vitiate the trial unless it causes actual prejudice or failure of justice.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
