DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
23rd December 2020
JUDGES:
JUSTICE MS.KIRAN BANSAL
PARTIES:
STATE
YASHBIR SINGH……………. (ACCUSED)
SUBJECT
It was held that in the absence of proof of demand, the legal presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988 would also not arise. It was held that such proof of acceptance of illegal gratification could follow only if there is proof of demand.
FACTS
- Sailendra Kumar is an auto−rickshaw driver having a Delhi, Ghaziabad and Noida permit to ply auto-rickshaw. He approached the Vigilance Branch against a public official in the demand of bribes.
- The complainant had stated in his complaint that one HC Shyambir, along with another police official, (known as Fauji), demanded Rs. 19,000/− monthly for permitting his vehicle to ply on the road and told the complainant that if he did not pay Rs. 19,000/− monthly to them, they would not allow the auto−rickshaw of the complainant to run on the route. It had further stated that the amount of bribe for plying auto−rickshaw was scaled down to Rs.9,000/−
- Based on the complaint, a raid was conducted by Inspector Anand Singh along with his staff and witness. The complainant was handed over the amount of Rs. 9,000/, so the accused would get caught red-handed at the spot. As per the trap, the accused had got caught and the bribe amount was also recovered from his possession.
- The FIR was registered after the completion of the raid proceeding against the accused. Albeit he was a police official, the sanction order had been obtained under Section 19 of the Act from the sanctioning authority and after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act.
- The accused pleaded not guilty.
- The prosecution had failed to establish that the accused demanded any illegal gratification from the complainant. Hence, the accused had given the opportunity for the benefit of doubt and therefore, acquitted from the alleged offences.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988
- Section 7. Public servants taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act: Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of Section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.
- Section 13(1)(d)
(d) If he,—
(i)By corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii)By abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage;
(iii)While holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; shall bepunishable with imprisonment for a term of three years, which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to five years and with fine.
- Section 20:Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration.
ISSUES
The following are the major issues framed by the Court-
- Whether there are any demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988?
- Whether the criminal misconduct by a public servant under Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act would refer to the guilty mind of the accused?
- Whether the no proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification would raise the presumption under S.20 of the PC Act?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
- It is a settled law that the prosecution has to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the accused has to be considered innocent till it is established by cogent evidence regarding “demand and acceptance of illegal gratification”. Mere recovery of the tainted amount would not prove the charge against the accused and in absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused had voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe, the conviction cannot be sustained.
- While adjudicating the case, the Court decided that mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence underSection 7unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. To prove the criminal misconduct, there can be no acceptance without prior agreement.
- To attract the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act, there was a demand of demand or acceptance of gratification. On analyzing the testimony of the witness, it had established there was a demand of any bribe amount by the accused but he had not heard any words and could not say what were the exact words spoken by the accused due to the noise of the auto-rickshaw. In the absence of mere recovery of tainted money from the hands of the accused, it is not sufficient to convict him.
CONCLUSION
The analysis in the present case was vague and not satisfactory. The testimony of the complainant was unreliable, inconsistent and untrustworthy and there were no specific words spoken by the accused to indicate the illegal gratification of demand. The evidence adduced by the prosecution was not substantive to prove the guilt of the accused. The accused is entitled to have a benefit of the doubt. The prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused of the alleged offences therefore, beyond unreasonable doubt the accused has given the benefit of doubt and therefore, is acquitted.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
