[needs editing] "Mere recovery of currency can't constitute offence under PC Act," Supreme Court acquits Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax after 22 years in false corruption case

The Supreme Court has recently acquitted Rajesh Gupta, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax from false charges under Prevention of Corruption Act confirmed by the Delhi High Court observing that mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute an offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act.

A bench of Justice opined that "the judgments of the Courts below suffer from serious infirmities and manifest error. There is no proof of demand at pre­trap stage or during trap."

The Petition has been filed challenging order of the Delhi High Court confirming the order of the Special Judge, Central District­ 02, Delhi convicting Gupta for the offences under Sections 7 & 13 (2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Special Judge had sentenced Gupta to 2 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 15,000. The allegations against Gupta was that he accepted bribe/illegal gratification of Rs 15,000 from Madhu Bala in regard to scrutiny of her case, which was pending with the him.

The Special Judge had noted that by corrupt and illegal means, he abused his position as a public servant and obtained pecuniary advantage for himself.

Gupta was represented by Senior Advocate V Giri along with Advocate Mehul Gupta.

It was alleged that the said currency notes were wrapped in a note­sheet on which the traces of the finger prints of the appellant were found, which is treated as acceptance by the appellant.

In addition to the aforesaid, the note sheet paper, in which the currency notes were wrapped, on being dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate turned pink.

However, the bench opined that it is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant, in particular, when the currency notes laced with phenolphthalein powder were found towards the visitors side on the table and not recovered from the person or drawer of his table and the solution in which the hands of appellant were dipped, did not turn pink.

The Court held that the mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute an offence under Section 7 of PC Act, unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused voluntarily accepted the money, knowing it to be a bribe. The proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand.

The Court noted that there is no proof of demand at pre-­trap stage or during trap. The Courts must not over­look the fundamental principle of ignorance of accused till the charge levelled against the appellant is established beyond reasonable doubt.

The bench had relied upon the Judgment of Supreme Court in the cases B. Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014)13 and C.M. Girish Babu vs. CBI 3 SCC 779 are relevant, whereby this Court has clearly spelt out that the recovery shall follow the proof of demand.

Cause Title: Rajesh Gupta Vs. State Through Central Bureau of Investigation