Demand & Acceptance Enough for Conviction? Supreme Court Clarifies in Bribery Case

The Supreme Court recently set aside the acquittal of an Income Tax officer in a bribery case, holding him guilty of demanding and accepting Rs 2 lakh.

While allowing the appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Court reduced the four-year sentence awarded by the trial court to one year of imprisonment.

The Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran directed the officer, Baljeet Singh, who was then serving as an Income Tax Inspector, to surrender within four weeks to serve the sentence along with a fine of Rs 1 lakh.

At the same time, Court upheld the acquittal of senior officer Arun Kumar Gujjar, who was then Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. It agreed with the high court’s finding that there was no evidence to show that Gujjar had demanded any bribe from the complainant, who was a partner in a firm.

Hearing the CBI’s appeal against the Delhi High Court order, the Bench said it could not accept the acquittal of Baljeet Singh. Court noted that the complainant had clearly spoken about the demand for a bribe, both in his statement and in the complaint made to the CBI. It also observed that the pre-trap proceedings had been properly established.

The defence argued that since the charge of criminal conspiracy was not proved, the entire case should fail. Court rejected this, clarifying that there were two separate charges, one relating to conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC [corresponding to Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023], read with the Prevention of Corruption Act, and another independent charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act for demand and acceptance of a bribe.

The Bench explained that even if the conspiracy charge fails, the separate charge of demanding and accepting a bribe can still be proved against an accused independently. It noted that the charges against the two officers were not inseparably linked through a proven conspiracy.

The respondent also claimed that the complainant had personal enmity, as the officer had earlier conducted scrutiny proceedings against a related firm operating from the same premises. However, Court found that the complainant had accepted both the scrutiny and the penalty imposed in that earlier case.

On examining the evidence, Court found that the pre-trap proceedings were clearly proved. It noted that the complainant’s testimony was fully supported by other evidence, including independent witnesses who confirmed the recovery of the money from the accused’s coat pocket. The hand-wash test also conclusively established contact with the tainted currency.

According to the case, on October 27, 2010, the complainant visited the Income Tax Office, where he met Baljeet Singh, who then took him to the senior officer. After the meeting, Singh allegedly demanded Rs 5 lakh on behalf of the senior officer. When the complainant objected, the amount was negotiated, but Singh did not agree to reduce it sufficiently. This led the complainant to approach the CBI.

Following the complaint, a trap was laid, and Baljeet Singh was caught with Rs 2 lakh, leading to his arrest.

Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Baljeet Singh

Bench: Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran

Date of Judgment: March 10, 2022