Recovery of laced currency notes from purse not enough to prove acceptance of bribe: Punjab & Haryana HC acquits "Patwari"

A Single Judge Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court comprising Justice Avneesh Jhinghan has held that for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification has to be proved by the prosecution.

The appellant, a patwari, filed an appeal against an order of the trial court convicting him under sections 7 (Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act), 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) (criminal misconduct by public servant) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding a bribe of Rs. 2500. It was alleged that he accepted the bribe for correction of a plot of land in order to redeem the mortgaged land of the complainant's father. A trap was laid wherein five notes each of denomination Rs. 500 were initialed and laced with Phenolphthalein power and a person from the police was also present as a shadow witness.

The appellant was apprehended sitting on a motorcycle and from a purse kept in the pocket of his pant, laced currency notes were recovered. On washing the hand and pockets of pant of the appellant, the color of the solution turned pink. After the grant of sanction, charges were framed against the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The advocate for the appellant argued that the complainant has not supported the version of the prosecution and the shadow witness did not hear the conversation between the complainant and the appellant. He also argued that there was no evidence of demanding and accepting bribes and that the appellant was falsely implicated in the case.

The court while setting aside the conviction noted that

“The evidence in the shape of hand wash test and recovery of the laced currency notes from the purse of the appellant in such circumstances cannot be made sole basis for proving acceptance of bribe. On failure to prove acceptance of bribe, presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot be drawn against the appellant.”

Further, while noting that there should be demand and acceptance of gratification for convicting a person the court noted that,

“On considering the facts and re-appreciating evidence, the judgment of conviction and order of quantum cannot be upheld on account of failure of the prosecution to prove the sine qua non for conviction i.e. demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification.”

Case Title: Praveen Kumar vs State of Haryana