AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Conviction,Sentence
Under Section 7 of the PC Act,"Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and fine of
Rs.2,000 with default stipulation
Under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of
the PC Act","Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and fine of
Rs.2,000 with default stipulation
Both the jail sentences are directed to run
concurrently
servant/Appellant. A heinous offence relating to a public servant is sufficient for termination of his services. Degree/standard of proof of ingredients,
of the offence is high and the prosecution is required to prove the offence by adducing cogent evidence without leaving any room for doubt or,
ambiguity.,
In a case of illegal gratification, there are three essential ingredients to constitute the offence. They are (i) demand, (ii) acceptance and",
(iii) recovery.,
In the instant case, it is not in dispute that at the relevant time, the Appellant was posted as a Beat Guard in the forest situated in Village",
Naragaon, where the Complainant was also residing. It is also not in dispute that the Complainant had demolished his old house and constructed there",
a new house in which he had used forest wood. It is also not in dispute that on 14.4.1999, the Appellant had registered a forest crime against the",
Complainant and on 14.4.1999 itself, he had made seizure of forest wood from the house of the Complainant.",
With regard to the initial demand of bribe, it was the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court that on 9.4.1999, written complaint (Ex.P2)",
was filed by Complainant Ashok (PW3) in the office of Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Raipur. Complainant Ashok (PW3) admitted that he had",
made an oral complaint. The complaint (Ex.P2) was not written by him nor did he sign the said complaint (Ex.P2). Investigating Officer R.L. Armo,
(PW12) also admitted the fact that in the written complaint (Ex.P2), name of the Appellant is written with a different ink. From perusal of the written",
complaint (Ex.P2), it appears that name of the Appellant was added later on in a blank space with a different ink. Investigating Officer R.L. Armo",
(PW12), in his examination-in-chief itself, deposed that the written complaint (Ex.P2) was given to him on 14.4.1999 by the Incharge Superintendent",
of Police, Lokayukta, Raipur Mr. Banjara (not examined) for taking necessary action. In his Court statement, Complainant Ashok (PW3) has nowhere",
disclosed the date of recording of the conversation took place between him and the Appellant regarding the demand of bribe. The transcription,
(Ex.P4) of the said conversation was prepared on 15.4.1999. It is also not in dispute that there is no content in the transcription (Ex.P4) to show that,
any demand for bribe was made by the Appellant from the Complainant. It is also not in dispute that the written complaint (Ex.P5) was submitted by,
the Complainant on 15.4.1999. As admitted by Investigating Officer R.L. Armo (PW12), before that, the Appellant had registered a forest crime",
against the Complainant on 14.4.1999. Author of the written complaint (Ex.P2) Mr. Banjara has not been examined by the prosecution. Thus, making",
of the written complaint (Ex.P2) itself is doubtful.,
From perusal of the statements of Complainant Ashok (PW3), panch witnesses R.P. Sao (PW6) and Rajendra Swarnakar (PW9) and",
Investigating Officer R.L. Armo (PW12), it is clear that both the panch witnesses and other members of the trap party had stayed nearby the house",
of the Appellant and at the time of alleged transaction going on between the Complainant and the Appellant inside the house of the Appellant they,
were not present inside the said house and as admitted by them they did not witness giving of bribe money by the Complainant to the Appellant inside,
the house nor did they hear any conversation took place between the Complainant and the Appellant inside the house from the place where they were,
standing. From the evidence on record itself, it is clear that even after availability of a tape recorder and a blank cassette with the Complainant at the",
time of trap and despite having a direction to record the conversation, the Complainant did not record his conversation with the Appellant took place",
inside the house of the Appellant regarding the alleged demand of bribe. Though according to the case of the prosecution the Complainant by mistake,
forgot to record the conversation, looking to the fact that on earlier occasion he was well aware to record the conversation and knowingly that a forest",
crime had already been registered against him on 14.4.1999, by mistake he forgot to record his conversation with the Appellant took place on",
15.4.1999 is doubtful. Therefore, there is substance in the defence of the Appellant that on 15.4.1999 itself also the Appellant had not made any",
demand for bribe and on that day the Complainant had deliberately kept the tainted money in his pocket telling him that the same was for deposit of,
the fine.,
In (2009) 3 SCC 779 (C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala), the Supreme Court held thus:",
In Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1979) 4 SCC 725, this Court took the view that (at SCC p. 727, para 2) mere recovery of tainted money",
divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not,
reliable. The mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused, in the absence of any evidence to prove",
payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe.""",
Further, in (2014) 13 SCC 55 (B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh), it was held by the Supreme Court as under:",
Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the",
said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that,
the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this,
Court. By way of illustration reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P., (2010) 15 SCC 1 and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI,",
(2009) 3 SCC 779.,
Insofar as the presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption can only be in respect of the",
offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. In any event, 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. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary,
facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent.""",
Recently, in (2021) 3 SCC 687 (N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu), reiterating the judgment of C.M. Girish Babu case (supra) and B.",
Jayaraj case (supra), it was held by the Supreme Court as follows:",
It is equally well settled that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused. Reference can be made to",
the judgments of this Court in C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, (2009) 3 SCC 779 and in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55. In the aforesaid",
judgments of this Court while considering the case under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)",
(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it is reiterated that to prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the",
accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe. Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of,
currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence. In the said judgments it is also held that even the presumption under Section 20 of the Act,
can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. It is also fairly well settled that initial presumption of innocence in,
the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the trial court.,
In the light of above view taken by the Supreme Court, in the instant case also, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case of",
demand and acceptance of bribe money by the Appellant. Therefore, only on the basis of recovery of the tainted money, conviction of the Appellant is",
not sustainable. The finding of the Trial Court is not in accordance with the evidence available on record as also not in accordance with law.,
As an outcome of the discussion made above, the instant appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Trial Court under challenge is set aside. The",
Appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him.,