IMPORTANT POINT
Illegal gratification – Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act can be invoked only when two basic facts of ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of gratification are proved – When allegation is of demand of gratification and acceptance thereof by accused, it must be as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay S. Oka, J.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

1. The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge, Delhi for the offences punishable under Section 7 and clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’). The co-accused, Mr. Yogesh Kumar, was convicted by the Special Judge for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the PC Act. The co-accused was acquitted by the High Court. The appellant was sentenced to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- for the offence punishable under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the PC Act. For the offence punishable under Section 7, she was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. Sentences in default of payment of fine were also imposed. The conviction of the appellant has been upheld by the High Court by the impugned judgment.

2. The complainant – Mr. Ravijit Singh died before the trial commenced. In fact, PW7, the Investigation Officer, deposed that the complainant was murdered. In his complaint, the complainant stated that he was doing business of sale and purchase of cars in a shop situated at Vikas Puri, New Delhi. His case is that there was no electricity meter installed in his shop and therefore, on 6th May 1996 he applied for an electricity meter. In the complaint filed by him on 17th April 2000, in the form of his statement recorded by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, he stated that pursuant to the application dated 6th May 1996, a meter was installed in his shop and after a few months, he found that the meter was removed. As the shopkeepers in the area had got the electricity meters installed through the appellant, he met her. On 17th April 2000, he received a telephone call at 7:30 a.m. from the appellant who was working as an Inspector in the D.V.B./electricity department in the local area. She called him at her residence to discuss the issue of the electricity meter. At 8:00 a.m., when the complainant met her, she demanded a sum of Rs.15,000/- for getting the meter installed and ultimately after negotiations, she settled the demand at Rs.10,000/-. According to the complainant, the appellant stated that she would come to his shop between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. when the complainant should hand over the papers for the electricity meter and Rs.10,000/- as a bribe. The complainant stated that he had no option but to accept her demand for a bribe.

3. The prosecution’s case is that on the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a trap was laid. PW5, Mr. S. K. Awasthi, was the shadow witness. When he along with the complainant as well as members of the raiding party visited the complainant’s shop at 3:50 p.m., the appellant was not present there. At about 4:40 p.m., a telephone call was received by the complainant that the appellant would come at around 5:30/6:00 p.m. At 5:20 p.m., the appellant came with the co-accused and demanded the documents and bribe of Rs.10,000/-, which was paid by the complainant. The Special Court held that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence on record to prove the guilt of the appellant. In fact, a finding was recorded on the basis of circumstantial evidence that the demand and acceptance were proved. The order of conviction of the learned Special Court as regards the appellant has been confirmed by the High Court in the impugned judgment.

4. While hearing this appeal, a bench of two Hon’ble Judges of this Court came to a conclusion that the decisions of this Court of the benches of three Hon’ble Judges in the cases of B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2014 (13) SCC 55 and P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. 2015 (10) SCC 152 were in conflict with an earlier three-Judge bench’s decision in the case of M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P. 2001 (1) SCC 691. Accordingly, the following question was referred to the larger bench:

“The question w