2021 Supreme(SC) 50

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, M.R. Shah, JJ.
N.Vijayakumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 100-101 of 2021 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.4729-4730 of 2020]
Decided On : 03-02-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Appeal against acquittal – If view taken by trial court is a possible view, High Court cannot reverse acquittal to that of conviction.
(2) Illegal gratification – Mere recovery of tainted money, divorced from circumstances under which such money and article is found is not sufficient to convict accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable.
(3) Before recording conviction under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, courts have to take utmost care in scanning evidence.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Only in cases where conclusion recorded by the trial court is not a possible view, then only High Court can interfere and reverse acquittal to that of conviction – If view taken by trial court is a possible view, High Court cannot reverse acquittal to that of conviction – So long as view of trial court can be reasonably formed, regardless of whether High Court agrees with same or not, verdict of trial court cannot be interdicted and High court cannot supplant over view of trial court. (Para 10)

(B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) and 20 – Illegal gratification – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – Mere recovery of tainted money, divorced from circumstances under which such money and article is found is not sufficient to convict accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable – When Inspecting Officer and other witnesses who are examined on behalf of prosecution, went to office of appellant-accused, appellant was not there in office and office was open and people were moving out and in from office of appellant – To prove charge, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe – Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence – Presumption under Section 20 of Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved – Initial presumption of innocence in criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by trial court – Demand for and acceptance of bribe amount and cell phone by appellant, is not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Having regard to such evidence on record acquittal recorded by trial court is a possible view, as such judgment of High Court is fit to be set aside. (Paras 9, 11 and 12)

(C) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) and 20 – Illegal gratification – Before recording conviction under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, courts have to take utmost care in scanning evidence – Once conviction is recorded under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, it casts a social stigma on the person in society apart from serious consequences on service rendered – Whether view taken by trial court is a possible view or not, there cannot be any definite proposition and each case has to be judged on its own merits, having regard to evidence on record. (Para 12)

Facts of the case:

Sole accused in Special Calendar Case No.49 of 2011 on file of Special Court for Trial of Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai, has filed these appeals, aggrieved by conviction recorded vide judgment dated 28.08.2020 and 22.09.2020 and sentence imposed vide order dated 15.09.2020 and 29.09.2020 by Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Findings of Court:

Before recording conviction under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, courts have to take utmost care in scanning the evidence. Once conviction is recorded under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, it casts a social stigma on the person in the society apart from serious consequences on the service rendered. At the same time it is also to be noted that whether view taken by the trial court is a possible view or not, there cannot be any definite proposition and each case has to be judged on its own merits, having regard to evidence on record.

Result : Appeal allowed