2018 Supreme(Pat) 1041

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.
RAJESH KUMAR @ RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 492 of 2015
Decided on : 07-09-2018

Headnote:

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - [SECTION 7] - [SECTION 13(2) READ WITH SECTION 13(1)(B)] - [SECTION 20] - [SECTION 100] - DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE - RECOVERY OF TAINTED MONEY - PRESUMPTION - REBUTTAL - HOSTILE WITNESS - EVIDENCE OF HOSTILE WITNESS - CORROBORATION - SEARCH AND SEIZURE - SECTION 100 CRPC - STATUS OF WITNESSES - STOCK WITNESSES - INTERESTED WITNESSES - BURDEN OF PROOF - EXPLANATION BY ACCUSED - STANDARD OF PROOF - CONVICTION - APPEAL - DISMISSAL.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar Gupta, was found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 6000/-. He was also sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 6000/- under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(b) of the PC Act. The sentences were to run concurrently. The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge, CBI-1st, Patna, in Special Case No. 77/2011 arising out of R.C. No. 19(A) 2009. The conviction was based on the complaint filed by Ashok Kumar Sahu (PW 6) before the Superintendent of Police, CBI, on 15.07.2009, alleging that the appellant, a bank employee, had demanded a bribe of Rs. 2000/- for finalizing his pension order. The appellant denied the allegations and pleaded that he was falsely implicated in the case.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant, as well as the recovery of the tainted money from his possession. The court also found that the appellant had failed to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act. The court held that the evidence of the complainant, PW 6, was admissible even though he was declared hostile, as it was corroborated by other reliable evidence. The court also held that the search and seizure of the tainted money and the pension papers from the appellant's Almirah was valid, even though there was no endorsement regarding the handing over of a copy of the seizure list to the appellant. The court further held that the status of PW-3 and PW-4 as stock witnesses of the CBI did not affect their credibility, as they had no grudge against the appellant and there was no evidence that they were promised or allured for their activities. The court dismissed the appellant's appeal, holding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the appellant had failed to discharge his obligation under Section 20 of the PC Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant? 2. Whether the recovery of the tainted money from the appellant's possession was valid? 3. Whether the appellant had rebutted the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act? 4. Whether the evidence of the complainant, PW 6, was admissible even though he was declared hostile? 5. Whether the search and seizure of the tainted money and the pension papers from the appellant's Almirah was valid? 6. Whether the status of PW-3 and PW-4 as stock witnesses of the CBI affected their credibility?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant was proved by the evidence of the complainant, PW 6, which was corroborated by other reliable evidence. 2. The recovery of the tainted money from the appellant's possession was valid, even though there was no endorsement regarding the handing over of a copy of the seizure list to the appellant. 3. The appellant had failed to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act. 4. The evidence of the complainant, PW 6, was admissible even though he was declared hostile, as it was corroborated by other reliable evidence. 5. The search and seizure of the tainted money and the pension papers from the appellant's Almirah was valid, even though there was no endorsement regarding the handing over of a copy of the seizure list to the appellant. 6. The status of PW-3 and PW-4 as stock witnesses of the CBI did not affect their credibility, as they had no grudge against the appellant and there was no evidence that they were promised or allured for their activities.

Final Decision: The appellant's appeal was dismissed, holding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the appellant had failed to discharge his obligation under Section 20 of the PC Act.