Court affirms acquittal in corruption case due to lack of evidence and procedural flaws

The High Court upheld the Trial Court's acquittal of the respondent in a corruption case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution failed to convincingly prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe, with procedural lapses and inconsistencies weakening their case. The recorded conversation was deemed inadmissible due to missing evidence, and the defense successfully refuted the alleged motive for the bribe demand. The Court emphasized procedural adherence and unbiased investigations, dismissing the appeal and affirming the acquittal judgment.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Acquittal of the respondent by the Trial Court.
2. Alleged demand and acceptance of bribe by the respondent.
3. Validity of recorded conversations as evidence.
4. Motive for demand of illegal gratification.
5. Procedural lapses and bias in investigation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Acquittal of the respondent by the Trial Court:
The CBI challenged the impugned judgment dated 11th December 2015, which acquitted the respondent of offences under Section 7 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Trial Court acquitted the respondent due to lack of evidence establishing the demand and acceptance of bribe, procedural lapses, and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.

2. Alleged demand and acceptance of bribe by the respondent:
The prosecution alleged that the respondent demanded a bribe of Rs. 8,00,000/- from V. Swaminathan for clearing an export license. During verification, a telephonic conversation was recorded, revealing the demand and willingness to accept the bribe. A trap was set, and the respondent was allegedly caught accepting Rs. 1,00,000/- as part of the bribe. However, the Trial Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the demand and acceptance of the bribe convincingly. The shadow witness and TLO Inspector Rajesh Chahal could not confirm the explicit demand for the bribe during the trap proceedings.

3. Validity of recorded conversations as evidence:
The recorded conversation between the respondent and V. Swaminathan was a crucial piece of evidence. However, the original DVR was not produced in court, and the prosecution failed to provide a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, rendering the audio tapes inadmissible. The Trial Court noted that the specific portion of the recording showing the demand for the bribe was missing, further weakening the prosecution's case.

4. Motive for demand of illegal gratification:
The prosecution argued that the respondent had the motive to demand the bribe as the NOC for the export license was pending in his office. However, the defense established that the respondent was not the final authority for granting the NOC. The testimony of DW-2 and minutes of the IMWG meeting indicated that the approval for the complainant's company was granted unconditionally, except for the case related to Qatar, which was subject to NOC from the Cabinet Secretariat. The respondent had already forwarded the necessary note for approval to his superiors.

5. Procedural lapses and bias in investigation:
The Trial Court highlighted several procedural lapses and potential bias in the investigation. The initial complaint by V. Swaminathan was not placed on record, and there was no explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR. The investigation appeared to be biased, with the respondent alleging a conspiracy involving Dr. Shyam Aggarwal and V. Swaminathan. The defense argued that the respondent was a whistleblower who was falsely implicated.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the Trial Court's judgment, noting that the view expressed by the Trial Court was plausible based on the evidence presented. The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment of acquittal was not interfered with. The case highlighted the importance of proper procedural adherence and unbiased investigation in corruption cases.

---