2020 (6) TMI 219 - HC - Indian Laws

Court upholds acquittal in corruption case due to lack of evidence and witness inconsistencies.

State by C.B.I., Additional Superintendent of Police, Chennai. Versus Sarat Kumar Dash

The court confirmed the trial court's judgment of acquittal in a case involving allegations of criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act. ... Seeking Donations for the trust illegally - offence under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - acquittal of the accused - rebuttal of presumption - contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant/state is that the trial Court failed to consider the oral evidence and also the documentary evidence let-in by the prosecution to substantiate the case - HELD THAT:- The respondent, is not connected with UPUS trust. Only for the reason that the Managing trustees was residing in village, the respondent’s father who is Auditor of the CCCB Limited (Bank) was authorized to operate the trust account to facilitate the transaction. The amounts which have been properly accounted for the functioning of the trust is not in dispute. The house of the respondent was searched and no incriminating materials found. Further no case under disproportionate assets have been initiated against the respondent. The Investigating officer failed to show that there was any demand made by the respondent for donation to the trust. There is no material to connect the respondent with the trust and that he was benefited from the trust amount. It is well settled that the presumption to be drawn under Section 20 is not an inviolable one. The accused charged with the offence can rebut it either through the cross-examination of the witnesses cited against him or by adducing reliable evidence. If the accused fails to disprove the presumption the same would stick and then it can be held by the Court that the prosecution has proved that the accused received the amount towards gratification. It is equally well settled that the burden of proof placed upon the accused person against whom the presumption is made under Section 20 of the Act is not akin to the burden placed on the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden resting upon the accused is not so onerous, the respondent discharged the same by proof of balance of probabilities. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Whether the respondent was guilty of criminal misconduct under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. Whether the trial court erred in its judgment of acquittal.3. The validity of the evidence presented by the prosecution.4. The role and actions of the respondent in relation to the UPUS Trust.5. The application of the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the respondent was guilty of criminal misconduct under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:The prosecution alleged that the respondent, a public servant, habitually accepted valuable things, specifically donations totaling Rs. 4,50,005/-, without consideration for the UPUS Trust, Cuttack. The trust was formed on 05.10.2001, and the respondent's father was its President. The prosecution argued that the respondent received donations from assessees and Chartered Accountants in the name of the trust. However, the trial court found no direct evidence linking the respondent to any demand or compulsion for donations.2. Whether the trial court erred in its judgment of acquittal:The trial court acquitted the respondent, finding that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The Special Public Prosecutor contended that the trial court did not properly consider the oral and documentary evidence, particularly the testimonies of PW32, PW41, and PW52. However, the defense argued that the majority of witnesses did not support the prosecution's case, and the trial court's judgment was well-reasoned.3. The validity of the evidence presented by the prosecution:The prosecution examined 62 witnesses and marked 209 exhibits. Key witnesses like PW32, PW41, and PW52 testified about the respondent's involvement in soliciting donations. However, their testimonies were found to be inconsistent and unreliable. For instance, PW32 admitted that his donations were made voluntarily and that his Income Tax matters were handled by an auditor, not directly by the respondent. Similarly, PW41 and PW52 did not provide conclusive evidence of any pressure or demand from the respondent.4. The role and actions of the respondent in relation to the UPUS Trust:The respondent's father, not the respondent, was authorized to operate the trust's bank account. The defense argued that the trust was engaged in legitimate charitable activities, especially in the aftermath of a cyclonic storm in Orissa. The respondent's house was searched, and no incriminating materials were found. The trust's accounts were transparent and audited, and no disproportionate assets case was initiated against the respondent.5. The application of the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:The prosecution argued that the presumption under Section 20 should apply, indicating guilt unless disproved by the respondent. However, the court noted that this presumption is not inviolable and can be rebutted through cross-examination or reliable evidence. The defense successfully demonstrated that the respondent had no direct involvement with the trust's operations and that the donations were made voluntarily by the donors.Conclusion:The court concluded that there was no material evidence to connect the respondent with any misconduct related to the UPUS Trust. The judgment of acquittal by the trial court was confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed. The court emphasized that the burden of proof on the accused under Section 20 is not as onerous as that on the prosecution, and the respondent had successfully rebutted the presumption of guilt through a balance of probabilities.