Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, where the accused, an Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, was alleged to have demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 15,000 from the complainant for settling her income tax scrutiny case. The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, and the High Court confirmed the conviction, relying on the complainant's testimony, recordings, and a presumption under Section 20. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting that pre-trap demands on 07.03.2000 were not proved as key witnesses like the Chartered Accountant and the complainant's employee were not examined. The telephonic conversation recording was inaudible, and the transcript was prepared 15 months later, making it unreliable. The court emphasized that in corruption cases, demand and acceptance must be proved by cogent evidence, and the testimony of an interested witness like the complainant must be rigorously tested. It found that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the accused, and allowed the appeal, holding that the presumption under Section 20 could not be invoked without proof of demand and acceptance.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d) - The prosecution alleged that the accused, a public servant, demanded and accepted a bribe from the complainant - The court found that pre-trap demands on 07.03.2000 were not proved as key witnesses were not examined, and the testimony of the complainant, an interested witness, was insufficient - Held that foundational facts of demand and acceptance were not established beyond reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal (Paras 9-10). B) Criminal Law - Evidence - Admissibility of Recordings and Transcripts - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 161 - The prosecution relied on a telephonic conversation recording (Exb. P2) and its transcript to prove demand - The court noted the recording was inaudible, the transcript was prepared 15 months later and was doubtful, and the accused was denied access to it - Held that such evidence cannot be relied upon to prove demand, and the prosecution's failure to produce key witnesses like Mr. Awasthi weakened the case (Paras 10-11). C) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption - Presumption Under Section 20 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 20 - The High Court drew a presumption under Section 20 to confirm the conviction - The Supreme Court found that the foundational facts of demand and acceptance were not proved, so the presumption could not be invoked - Held that without proof of demand and acceptance, the presumption under Section 20 does not apply, and the conviction cannot stand (Paras 3, 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused beyond reasonable doubt under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and High Court, acquitted the appellant of all charges, and allowed the appeal.
Law Points
- In a corruption case under the Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- the prosecution must prove demand
- acceptance
- and recovery of illegal gratification by cogent evidence
- the testimony of an interested witness must be tested rigorously
- foundational facts like pre-trap demand must be established beyond reasonable doubt
- and inaudible recordings or doubtful transcripts cannot be relied upon to prove demand.
