2019 Supreme(SC) 1305

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INDU MALHOTRA, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
Vinod Kumar Garg - Appellants
Versus
State (Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi) - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1781 of 2009
Decided On : 27-11-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Mere error, omission or irregularity in sanction is not considered to be fatal unless it has resulted in a failure of justice or has been occasioned thereby.
(2) Witnesses are not required to recollect and narrate entire version with photographic memory notwithstanding hiatus and passage of time.

Headnote:

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7 and 13 read with Section 20 – Illegal gratification – Appellant was searched and polythene bag containing five Rs.100/- currency notes was recovered from right-side pant pocket of appellant – Numbers on currency notes were tallied with pre-raid report and were found to be same – Witnesses are not required to recollect and narrate entire version with photographic memory notwithstanding hiatus and passage of time – Picayune variations do not in any way negate and contradict main and core incriminatory evidence of demand of bribe, reason why bribe was demanded and actual taking of the bribe that was paid, which are ingredients of offence under Sections 7 and 13 of Act, have been proved and established beyond reasonable doubt – Documents prepared contemporaneously affirm primary and ocular evidence – No good ground and reason to upset and set aside findings recorded by trial court that have been upheld by High Court – Condition precedent to drawing such legal presumption that accused has demanded and was paid bribe money has been proved and established by incriminating material on record – Presumption under Section 20 of Act becomes applicable for offence committed by appellant under Section 7 of the Act – Appellant was found in possession of bribe money and no reasonable explanation is forthcoming that may rebut presumption – Money was demanded and accepted not as a legal remuneration but as a motive or reward to provide electricity connection – When besides such evidence, there is circumstantial evidence which is consistent with guilt of accused and inconsistent with his innocence, there should be no difficulty in upholding conviction – Appellant has not alleged or even argued that any prejudice was caused and suffered because investigation was conducted by t police officer of the rank of Inspector – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 7, 11, 14, 19 and 21)

(B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 20 – Illegal gratification – Presumption – Statutory presumption under Section 20 of Act can be confuted by bringing on record some evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that money was accepted other than for motive or reward under Section 7 of Act – Standard required for rebutting presumption is tested on anvil of preponderance of probabilities which is a threshold of a lower degree than proof beyond all reasonable doubt. (Para 13)

(C) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 19 – Sanction for prosecution – Defect or irregularity in investigation however serious, would have no direct bearing on competence or procedure relating to cognizance or trial – Where cognizance of case has already been taken and case has proceeded to termination, invalidity of precedent investigation does not vitiate result, unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby – Similar is position with regard to validity of sanction – Mere error, omission or irregularity in sanction is not considered to be fatal unless it has resulted in a failure of justice or has been occasioned thereby – Section 19(1) of Act is matter of procedure and does not go to root of jurisdiction and once cognizance has been taken by court under the Code, it cannot be said that an invalid police report is foundation of jurisdiction of court to take cognizance and for that matter trial. (Para 20)

Facts of the case:

Impugned judgment dated 7th January 2009 passed by High Court of Delhi upholds conviction of appellant under Sections 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 imposed by Special Judge, Delhi vide judgement dated 27th March 2002. Appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years, and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for each offence and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for three months on both counts separately. Sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

Findings of Court:

Where the cognizance of case has already been taken and case has proceeded to termination, invalidity of precedent investigation does not vitiate the result, unless a miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby. Similar is position with regard to validity of sanction.

Result : Appeal dismissed.