Mere Possession Or Recovery Of Currency Is Not Sufficient To Constitute Offence Under Prevention of Corruption Act,1988: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Wednesday has observed that absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute an offence under section 7 and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
"Before recording conviction under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 courts have to take utmost care in scanning the evidence. Once a conviction is recorded under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it casts a social stigma on the person in the society apart from serious consequences on the service rendered", the Bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice R Subhash Reddy, and Justice M.R Shah held.
In the present case, the appellant-accused was working as a Sanitary Inspector in the 8th Ward of Madurai Municipal Corporation. He was charge-sheeted for the offense under Sections 7 (Offence relating to public servant being bribed), 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) ( Criminal misconduct by a public servant) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 alleging that he demanded an amount of Rs.500/ and A cell phone as illegal gratification from who was working as Supervisor in a Voluntary Service Organisation called Neat And Clean Service Squad (NACSS). On trial, the Special Court, by judgment dated 25.02.2014, acquitted the appellant. Therefore aggrieved by the judgment of the Special Court the State preferred a Criminal Appeal before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, which reversed the acquittal, convicted the appellant, imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and penalty of Rs 5000/-. The appellant-accused therefore filed an appeal against the conviction order dated 28.08.2020 and 22.09.2020 and sentence imposed order dated 15.09.2020 and 29.09.2020 under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgments in C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala (2009) 3 SCC 779 and observed that mere recovery by itself could not prove the charge of prosecution against the accused.
In the judgments described above, it was held that while considering the case under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it is reiterated that to prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be a bribe. It was also held that even the presumption under Section 20 of the Act could be drawn only after the demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved.
The Bench further relied on the Supreme Court's judgment of B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55,
"7. Insofar as the offense under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non to constitute the said offense and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offense under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration, reference may be made to the decision inC.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. [(2010) 15 SCC 1 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 89] and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI [(2009) 3 SCC 779 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1].
9.Insofar as the presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption can only be in respect of the offense under Section 7 and not the offenses under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case, the primary facts based on which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent."
Based on the contradictions in the deposition of key witnesses, the Court allowed the appellant's appeal. It held that the demand for and acceptance of bribe amount and cell phone by the appellant-accused is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. To determine whether the trial court's view is a possible view or not, there is no definite proposition, and each case has to be judged on its own merits regarding the evidence on record.
"Initial presumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the trial court," the Bench observed.
Case Title: N.Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu
Law Point/ Statute Involved: Section 7 and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988