Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court allowed a criminal appeal and acquitted a municipal officer who had been convicted in 2002 for offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the foundational requirement of demand of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt and found the sanction for prosecution to be vitiated due to non-application of mind. Observing serious inconsistencies in witness testimony, improbability of the prosecution story, and procedural lapses in the trap proceedings, the Court concluded that the conviction was unsustainable and extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant. The impugned judgment and sentence were set aside.
Court’s decision
The High Court interfered with the conviction recorded by the Special Judge, holding that reliance on shaky evidence and a mechanically granted sanction had resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. It ruled that mere recovery of tainted money and a positive phenolphthalein test cannot substitute proof of demand, which is the sine qua non for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.
Facts
The case arose from allegations dating back to November 1993, when the appellant was serving as a Security Officer (Health) in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The prosecution alleged that he demanded illegal gratification of ₹10,000 from a retired Security Supervisor for forwarding his pension file, later agreeing to accept ₹5,000 as part payment. Acting on a complaint, the Anti-Corruption Branch laid a trap on 24 November 1993 at the appellant’s residence, during which ₹5,000 was allegedly recovered from the appellant’s pant pocket and wash samples tested positive for phenolphthalein.
Following investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted and, after trial, convicted in 2002 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved, he preferred the present appeal, challenging both the conviction and the validity of the sanction for prosecution.
Issues
The central issues before the High Court were whether the prosecution had proved the essential ingredient of demand of illegal gratification, whether the sanction for prosecution was valid in law, and whether the evidence relating to acceptance and recovery of tainted money was reliable. The Court also examined whether procedural irregularities and inconsistencies in the trap proceedings vitiated the conviction.
Petitioner’s arguments
The appellant argued that the sanction for prosecution was rendered illegal due to complete non-application of mind, as the sanctioning authority admitted to granting approval solely on the basis of a draft sanction and a police report, without examining the complaint, seizure memos, or witness statements. It was contended that such a mechanical sanction struck at the root of the prosecution.
The appellant further submitted that demand of bribe was not proved, pointing to contradictions between the complainant and the panch witness regarding the language, contents, and timing of the alleged demand. It was argued that the complainant bore animosity against the appellant due to repeated show-cause notices and disciplinary action, and that the pension file itself could not have been processed because the complainant had failed to comply with mandatory requirements. Reliance was placed on settled law that mere recovery cannot sustain a conviction in the absence of proof of demand.
Respondent’s arguments
The State supported the conviction, contending that the sanction was validly accorded and that minor lapses could not vitiate the prosecution in the absence of demonstrated failure of justice. It was argued that demand and acceptance stood proved through the testimonies of the complainant and the panch witness, corroborated by recovery of tainted money and positive chemical test results. The prosecution urged that inconsistencies highlighted by the defence were peripheral and did not affect the core of the case.
Analysis of the law
The Court reiterated that proof of demand is an indispensable requirement for offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It emphasised that statutory presumptions arise only after demand and voluntary acceptance are established beyond reasonable doubt.
On the issue of sanction, the Court relied on settled principles that sanction is not an empty formality and must reflect independent application of mind by the competent authority to all relevant material. A sanction granted mechanically, or merely by reproducing a draft prepared by the investigating agency, is invalid in law. The Court also reiterated that procedural safeguards in trap cases are not ornamental but substantive protections against false implication.
Precedent analysis
The Court applied Supreme Court jurisprudence holding that demand of illegal gratification is the sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that recovery alone is insufficient. It also relied on precedents which hold that sanction must demonstrate conscious and informed approval by the authority. These principles were applied to scrutinise the prosecution evidence and the sanction order in the present case, leading to the conclusion that both were fundamentally defective.
Court’s reasoning
The Court found that the prosecution story was rendered improbable by testimony of its own witnesses, including an office security guard who categorically stated that the complainant never met the appellant on the date when the alleged demand was made. Another prosecution witness deposed that the pension file could not have been processed due to the complainant’s own defaults, making the alleged motive for bribe demand doubtful.
The Court also noted material inconsistencies regarding the place of transaction, language of conversation, and conduct of wash proceedings, as well as absence of independent public witnesses despite availability. Significantly, the sanctioning authority admitted that he had not examined essential records and merely approved a draft sanction. In these circumstances, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that the conviction was based on unreliable evidence and an invalid sanction. The Court extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant and set aside the judgment and sentence passed by the trial court.
Implications
This judgment reinforces core principles of anti-corruption jurisprudence: that demand of illegal gratification is the foundation of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and that sanctions must reflect genuine application of mind. It serves as a caution against mechanical prosecution and underscores judicial scrutiny of trap proceedings, particularly in long-pending cases. For public servants and investigating agencies alike, the ruling highlights the importance of procedural rigor and evidentiary consistency in corruption prosecutions.
Case law reference
- Demand as sine qua non: Courts have consistently held that proof of demand is mandatory for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- Validity of sanction: Sanction must show independent application of mind and cannot be a verbatim reproduction of a draft prepared by investigators.
- Application in present case: These principles led to acquittal due to doubtful evidence and a mechanically granted sanction.
FAQs
Q1. Is recovery of bribe money sufficient to convict under the Prevention of Corruption Act?
No. Courts require clear proof of demand and voluntary acceptance; recovery alone is insufficient.
Q2. Can a conviction fail due to defective sanction for prosecution?
Yes. If sanction is granted mechanically without application of mind, the prosecution is vitiated.
Q3. Why are procedural safeguards important in trap cases?
They protect against false implication and ensure the credibility of anti-corruption prosecutions.
