SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, R. Banumathi, JJ.
V. Sejappa – Appellant
versus
The State by Police Inspector
Lokayukta, Chitradurga –Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 747 of 2008
Decided On : 12-04-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
‘Proof of demand’ is a sine qua non to constitute offence u/s 7.
Only proving recovery of tainted money is not enough to draw presumption u/s 20.
In absence of proof of demand and the paid amount not being proved to be illegal gratification, High Court ought not interfere with order of acquittal passed by trial court without considering defence plea of alibi nor holding decision of trial court to be erroneous or perverse.

Headnote:(a) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 19 – Sanction order signed by PW-8-Under Secretary – Trial court holding that in absence of any delegation of power by competent authority to PW-8 the sanction order was not valid – PW-8 deposing that the sanction was routed to the Minister through the Secretary and he only communicated the order – High Court, appreciating the facts in right perspective and holding that the sanction was valid – No infirmity. (Para 9)

       (b) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 7 – ‘Proof of demand’ is a sine qua non to constitute offence u/s 7. (Para 10)

       [2014] 3 Supreme 384; (2015) 10 SCC 152 – Relied upon

       (c) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 7 – Absence of appellant from his office during the relevant period highly probablised – Evidence of PW 4, 5 and 7 and Ex. P16 – Trial court taking a reasonable possible view and acquitting the appellant – High Court ought not have interfere with findings of trial court. (Para 14, 21)

       [2005] 4 Crimes(SC) 167 / [2005] 7 Supreme 155; [2006] 1 Supreme 1 / [2006] 1 Crimes(SC) 75– Relied upon

       (d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 13 and 20 – PW 2 not supporting prosecution version and declared hostile – Initial burden of proving demand and acceptance of illegal gratification lies on prosecution – Only after prosecution discharges the initial burden, the burden of proving defence shifts on the accused – Then only presumption u/s 20 would arise – Instantly, prosecution only proving recovery of tainted money – Not enough to draw presumption u/s 20. (Para 18)

       (1979) 4 SCC 725; (2009) 3 SCC 779; [2011] 4 Supreme 223(1); [2012] 4 Supreme 114 / [2012] 3 Crimes(SC) 1 – Relied upon

       (e) Administration of justice – Appellate jurisdiction – Judicial propriety – Absence of proof of demand – Payment of the alleged bribe amount being paid by PW1 complainant to appellant on account of money due for purchase of diesel as deposed by PW 2 – Allegation of amount being paid as illegal gratification doubtful – High Court neither considering defence plea of alibi nor holding decision of trial court to be erroneous or perverse – Grounds for acquittal by trial court not unreasonable – High Court not justified in interfering with decision of trial court. (Para 24)

       (2014) 5 SCC 730 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       Complainant-N.Ramakrishnappa retired as Special Grade Junior Engineer, Well Boring Sub-Division of Department of Public Health Engineering at Chitradurga. The complainant received his service benefits such as group insurance amount, medical reimbursement, GPF on 10.11.1997 and 14.11.1997 except D.C.R.G. and leave encashment benefits. The accused was then the Assistant Executive Engineer of the same Well Boring Sub-Division of Public Health Engineering at Chitradurga.

       On 16.12.1997, PW-1-complainant made an oral complaint before Police Inspector of Lokayukta, Chitradurga alleging that on 09.12.1997, the accused demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/-as illegal gratification from him for handing over ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) to process his pension papers and other retiral benefits.

       A trap was laid.

       A chargesheet was filed against the accused for the offences u/s Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

       The trial court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- by the accused from PW-1 for issuing ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) for settlement of his retiral benefits. The trial court also held that there was no valid sanction to prosecute the accused and thus acquitted the accused of all the charges.

       On appeal by State the High Court reversed the findings of the trial court and held that valid sanction order was obtained by the prosecution to prosecute the accused. The High Court allowed the appeal holding that the prosecution has proved the appellant’s demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/-to do an official act in connection with issuance of ‘No Objection Certificate’ to PW-1 and held the accused guilty of offences. The High Court sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for six months under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and further sentenced him to undergo two years imprisonment under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

       Finding of the Court:

       High Court ought not have interfered with decision of trial court.

       Result: Appeal allowed.