IMPORTANT POINT
Illegal gratification – False explanation given by accused insofar as acceptance is another compelling circumstance pointing to guilt of accused.

JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. We have before us, divergent findings in a prosecution initiated under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988¹[‘the Act’]. The trial court convicted the accused and imposed a sentence of two years both under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) to be suffered concurrently along with a fine of Rs.10,000 and default sentence under each of the two provisions. The High Court found that the prevaricating deposition of the complainant who was examined as PW1 failed to establish the necessary ingredients to prove offences under both the sections; particularly the demand. Placing reliance on the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731 the accused was acquitted and the State is in appeal.

3. We heard Shri Raghenth Basant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State who took us through the deposition of PW1 to argue that though inconsistent statements were made, there was sufficient oral evidence regarding the demand and the acceptance stood proved by the evidence of PW1 corroborated by that of PW2 an independent witness and PW17, the officer who led the trap. The acceptance of the amount is admitted by the accused and the explanation offered was a deliberate falsehood.

4. Shri P.B. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/accused would first urge that the presumption of innocence available to the accused stands fortified by the order of acquittal passed by the High Court. Reliance was placed on Jayaraj B. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2014 KHC 4199 wherein, it is urged, on identical facts, this Court found the demand to be not proved resulting in the acquittal of the accused. The cross examination is specifically read out to point out that the complainant had denied every line of his statement under Section 161 regarding the demand.

5. The complainant was an Authorized Ration Dealer (ARD) whose activities were subject to the control and supervision of the Civil Service Department through the Taluk Supply Office. The ARDs are required to produce the weekly accounts before the Revenue Inspector (RI) in the Taluk Supply Office and get verified the ‘Abstract’ of the changes in the ration cards, every three months. The ‘Abstract’ is a copy of a register maintained at the Taluk Supply Office, kept in the ration shop, which is required to be verified by the RI and then countersigned by the Taluk Supply Officer (TSO). The accused was the TSO responsible for the ARD run by the complainant who consistently refused to countersign the ‘Abstract’ and as per the prosecution case demanded a bribe of Rs.500/- which was handed over pursuant to a trap laid. The High Court found that the demand was not established by the evidence of PW1 and one of the independent witnesses who had accompanied the complainant into the cabin of the TSO, wherein the handing over of the note took place, had not been examined; thus creating a lacuna insofar as no direct evidence of a demand having been adduced. There was also no proof of an offer made by the complainant to the accused at the time of handing over, which, in the absence of a demand is a necessary ingredient under Section 7. The demand though alleged to have been made, the complainant turned hostile at the trial. These were the grounds on which the acquittal was ordered by the High Court.

6. The deposition of the complainant PW1 in the translation has been read over to us and that produced by the respondents/accused in the vernacular was read by one of us (KVC, J.), who is conversant with the language. As per the deposition of PW1 when the ‘Abstract’ was produced before the TSO, who is the accused, identified from the dock, he refused to so to do. Again, the TSO refused to countersign the ‘Abstract’ in the next week also when the complainant was informed by other ration dealers that the TSO would countersign only if he is giv