Court’s Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal appeal challenging the conviction under the bribery law and the provision relating to obtaining undue advantage as a public servant. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. Crucially, the Court found that the subsidy document allegedly handed over after the acceptance of illegal gratification was not tainted with anthracene powder, which directly contradicted the prosecution’s story. The Court also relied on significant admissions by the complainant that he demanded a receipt for the payment, which the Court found wholly inconsistent with the theory of bribery.
Given this serious doubt, the Court held that the conviction was unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and the appellant was acquitted. The appellant was directed to execute a bond under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to ensure appearance in case of an appeal by the State.
Facts
The case arose from an allegation that a public servant demanded illegal gratification of ₹1500 for releasing a subsidy amount of ₹3000 in favour of a fisherman who was a member of a village fishing society. When the fisherman approached the office seeking the subsidy, he was allegedly told that the subsidy would not be released without payment of a bribe.
After being unable to arrange the demanded amount, he later approached the anti-corruption authorities. Anthracene-smeared notes were prepared and a trap was organised. The complainant and an accompanying witness entered the office, allegedly paid the amount, and received the subsidy document. The raiding team entered immediately thereafter, recovered the currency from a drawer, and found the hands of the accused glowing under ultraviolet light.
During trial, however, multiple contradictions emerged. The complainant admitted that he demanded a receipt for the payment. He also admitted facts relating to fishing licences, prior seizures of fishing nets and boats, and the existence of earlier disputes involving the complainant’s family. Witnesses admitted that the complainant spent almost an hour and a half discussing fishing licences inside the office before the alleged payment. Critically, the subsidy document — which, according to the prosecution, was handled after the bribe was accepted — was found completely clean under ultraviolet testing.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the amount was demanded and accepted as illegal gratification.
- Whether the clean condition of the subsidy document destroyed the prosecution’s theory of the sequence of events.
- Whether the defence explanation that the amount was towards pending licence fees created reasonable doubt.
- Whether contradictions in witness testimony and admissions in cross-examination rendered the prosecution version unreliable.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant argued that the entire prosecution story was implausible. The accompanying witness admitted that the discussion for more than an hour was related to fishing licences, not a bribe. The appellant submitted that the subsidy document was undisputedly found clean even under ultraviolet light, proving that it was handed over before any anthracene-smeared notes were allegedly exchanged. This fact contradicted the prosecution’s narrative that the subsidy document was given only after the bribe was accepted.
The appellant further argued that the complainant himself admitted demanding a receipt for the ₹1500 payment and being asked to bring an additional ₹500 to issue a consolidated receipt of ₹2000. According to the appellant, no reasonable person demands a receipt for a bribe, and no public servant issues such receipts. This indicated that the payment was towards licence fees for a group of fishermen who were required to pay ₹200 per person. The appellant also highlighted past disputes, including cancellation of fishing contracts and seizure of fishing equipment, suggesting motivation for false implication. The defence relied on earlier Supreme Court and High Court judgments to argue that convictions cannot stand when foundational contradictions exist in the prosecution case.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification were fully proved by the complainant and the independent witness. The State submitted that the subsidy would not have been released if the complainant lacked a valid licence, demonstrating the accused’s motive for demanding payment. The State claimed that the defence theory of licence fees was an afterthought introduced belatedly and unsupported by evidence. The State emphasised the presumption available under the bribery provision in favour of the prosecution once acceptance of money is proved. According to the State, the judgments relied upon by the appellant were distinguishable on facts and the conviction deserved to be upheld.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the core requirements of proving bribery under criminal law:
(1) demand of illegal gratification,
(2) acceptance, and
(3) recovery linked to the offence.
The Court reiterated that mere recovery of tainted notes is insufficient unless demand and acceptance are proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Court considered the significance of the subsidy document found untainted, holding that if the prosecution narrative were correct, anthracene would inevitably have been transferred to the document.
The Court noted that the complainant’s admission that he demanded a receipt made the prosecution story improbable. The Court observed that even if the defence of payment towards licence fee wasn’t fully proved, the burden on the accused was only to create reasonable doubt, not to prove innocence affirmatively. The Court held that the admissions in cross-examination, the contradictory handling of the subsidy document, lengthy discussions about fishing licence, and absence of corroboration of demand made the prosecution case weak and unreliable.
Precedent Analysis
Sita Ram v. State of Rajasthan
Held that demand of illegal gratification is an essential ingredient and must be proved beyond doubt.
Relevance: The Court used this principle to conclude that demand was doubtful in the present case.
Sardarkhan Rahimkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra
Held that when substantial doubt exists regarding demand or acceptance, the benefit must go to the accused.
Relevance: Applied directly to resolve doubt arising from the clean subsidy document and admissions of the complainant.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the prosecution’s story collapsed on the fundamental inconsistency that the subsidy document was clean. This single fact materially contradicted the prosecution sequence, because if the document was handled after the alleged bribe exchange, it would have inevitably been tainted.
The Court also found the complainant’s admission of demanding a receipt wholly incompatible with a bribe transaction. Additionally, the Court noted that discussions between the parties for over an hour related to licence fees, supporting the defence version. The Court held that the trial judge failed to appreciate these crucial contradictions and ignored evidence that directly weakened the prosecution case.
Given the serious and reasonable doubt, the Court held that the conviction could not stand.
Conclusion
The High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant of all charges under the bribery law and the provision relating to obtaining undue advantage. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of the offence and that the defence explanation created a clear and reasonable doubt. The appellant was directed to execute a bond under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to ensure appearance if the State files an appeal.
Implications
- When prosecution evidence contains contradictions on material aspects such as sequence of events, courts must extend benefit of doubt.
- A clean document or object that should logically be tainted undermines the prosecution case entirely.
- A complainant’s conduct inconsistent with bribery, such as demanding a receipt, can be fatal to conviction.
- Courts reaffirm that demand of illegal gratification must be proved strictly and cannot be presumed.
FAQs
1. Can a conviction for bribery survive if the demand is doubtful?
No. Courts require the prosecution to prove demand clearly. Doubt regarding demand is sufficient to acquit.
2. Does recovery of tainted money automatically prove guilt?
No. Recovery alone is insufficient without independent proof of demand and voluntary acceptance.
3. What happens when physical evidence contradicts the prosecution’s version?
Contradictions such as a clean document that should be tainted create reasonable doubt and typically result in acquittal.