Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court ruled that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove both the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which are essential elements for a conviction under the Act.
The court relied on Supreme Court precedents, emphasizing that:
“Mere possession and recovery of currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence.” (B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2014)
Since neither the complainant nor the panch witness could positively confirm the appellant’s involvement in demanding or receiving a bribe, the conviction was set aside, giving the benefit of doubt to the appellant.
Facts
- Background of the Allegation
- The complainant, Mohd. Fahad, purchased a flat in his mother’s name, allotted by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).
- To get an electricity meter installed, the complainant needed certain documents attested by a DDA officer.
- The appellant, an Executive Engineer in the Electrical Division No.7, Keshav Puram, was alleged to have demanded Rs. 3,000 for attesting these documents.
- After negotiation, the demand was allegedly reduced to Rs. 1,000, and the appellant asked the complainant to bring the money on June 28, 2003.
- Complaint to Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB)
- Before paying the bribe, the complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) and filed a complaint (Ex. PW6/A).
- The ACB set up a trap operation, preparing pre-trap proceedings with phenolphthalein powder applied to the currency notes.
- A panch witness, Uma Shanker Gupta, was assigned to accompany the complainant and observe the transaction.
- Trap Proceedings and Arrest
- On June 28, 2003, the complainant and the panch witness went to the DDA office, where the bribe was allegedly paid.
- The panch witness later signaled to the raiding team, who rushed into the office.
- According to the prosecution, the appellant had accepted the bribe with his left hand and placed it in his left pant pocket.
- The left hand wash of the appellant turned pink when tested with sodium carbonate, confirming contact with phenolphthalein powder.
- The marked currency notes were recovered from his pocket.
- Trial and Conviction
- The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- The appellant was sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 10,000 on each count.
- The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
- Appeal and Subsequent Developments
- During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant passed away on June 11, 2021.
- His wife was permitted to continue the appeal under Section 394(2) Cr.P.C. as the conviction would affect his pensionary benefits.
Issues
- Was there conclusive proof that the appellant had demanded and accepted a bribe?
- Were the prosecution witnesses reliable, and did their testimonies align?
- Were there inconsistencies in the trap proceedings and witness statements that raised doubts about the conviction?
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The appellant’s counsel argued that there was no direct proof that the appellant ever demanded or accepted a bribe.
- The complainant’s initial statement mentioned a different officer, “Mr. Walia,” as the person who demanded the bribe.
- During cross-examination, the complainant expressed uncertainty about whether the appellant was “Mr. Walia.”
- The panch witness admitted that he identified the appellant only at the behest of the public prosecutor, raising doubts about the fairness of the identification.
- The prosecution’s case had several contradictions, particularly concerning:
- The date the document was attested.
- Where the trap proceedings took place (at the DDA office or at the ACB office).
- The defense presented evidence that the complainant’s document was attested before the alleged bribe demand date, making the accusation illogical.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The State opposed the appeal, arguing that the conviction was based on substantial evidence.
- The complainant initially identified the appellant, only to turn hostile during cross-examination, which the prosecution claimed was due to external influence.
- The prosecution argued that the panch witness initially supported their case but later contradicted himself, likely due to external pressure.
- The trap operation successfully recovered marked money from the appellant, and his handwash tested positive for phenolphthalein.
- The prosecution contended that even if there were minor inconsistencies, the broader evidence pointed to the appellant’s guilt.
Analysis of the Law
- Legal Standard for Conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act
- Under Section 7 of the PC Act, mere acceptance of money is not enough—it must be shown that the public servant demanded and then accepted illegal gratification.
- Under Section 13(1)(d), the prosecution must prove that the accused obtained any valuable thing through corrupt means.
- Key Supreme Court Precedents
- B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55:
- Held that mere possession and recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict; demand must be proved.
- Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731:
- Affirmed that proof of demand and acceptance is mandatory.
- Stated that demand can be proved through direct or circumstantial evidence, but neither was present in this case.
- B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55:
Precedent Analysis
- The court found that the lack of proof of demand made the conviction legally unsustainable.
- The contradictions in the complainant’s and panch witness’s testimonies further weakened the prosecution’s case.
- Since the document attestation had already been done before the alleged bribe demand, the prosecution’s case lost credibility.
Court’s Reasoning
- Failure to Prove Demand and Acceptance
- The complainant could not confirm that the appellant was the person who demanded the bribe.
- The panch witness admitted that he identified the appellant only after being prompted.
- Without clear evidence of demand, the charge under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) could not be sustained.
- Inconsistencies in the Trap Proceedings
- Contradictions in the location of the trap proceedings raised doubts about the authenticity of the operation.
- The timing of events was inconsistent, and the complainant’s earlier statement did not match the later testimonies.
- Appellant’s Statement and Defense Evidence
- The appellant stated that the complainant’s request was already processed on June 18, 2003, much before the alleged bribe demand on June 23, 2003.
- Defense witness Vijay Singh supported this claim.
- The absence of a clear link between the bribe demand and the attestation further weakened the prosecution’s case.
Conclusion
- The Delhi High Court held that demand was not conclusively proven, and mere possession of tainted money was insufficient for conviction.
- The court found major inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, and the testimonies of key witnesses did not inspire confidence.
- As a result, the conviction of the appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Implications
- Higher evidentiary standards for corruption cases: This ruling reinforces that both demand and acceptance must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Witness credibility is crucial: Contradictions in witness testimonies can derail corruption cases.
- Benefit of doubt in corruption cases: If the prosecution fails to establish a clear link between the accused and the alleged demand, the accused must be acquitted.
This case sets an important precedent for corruption law in India, ensuring that convictions are based on concrete evidence rather than mere assumptions.