Back
High Court of Delhi
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
Raj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Delhi – Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 831 of 2008
Decided On : 26-03-2015
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7 & 13(1)(d) - Conviction for demanding and accepting bribe - Appeal against - Ingredients of offence under Section 13(1)(d) - Demand and conscious acceptance of gratification, other than legal remuneration, is a sine qua non - Mere recovery of tainted money from the accused is not sufficient to convict the accused - Statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act - Accused failed to rebut the presumption - Conviction upheld.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a police constable, was convicted for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant. The complainant had filed a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) alleging that the appellant had demanded the bribe to vacate his temporary office. The ACB conducted a raid and caught the appellant red-handed while accepting the bribe money. The appellant was charged under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant was guilty of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court found that the appellant had demanded and consciously accepted the bribe money from the complainant. The court also found that the appellant had failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act, which arose due to the recovery of the tainted money from him. The court, therefore, upheld the conviction of the appellant.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had demanded and consciously accepted the bribe money from the complainant? 2. Whether the appellant had rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. In order to constitute the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, there must be a demand and conscious acceptance of gratification, other than legal remuneration. Mere recovery of tainted money from the accused is not sufficient to convict the accused. 2. The statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 arises when it is proved that the accused has obtained for himself gratification, other than legal remuneration, from any person. The accused can rebut this presumption by proving that he had not accepted, or obtained the gratification as a motive, or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and the conviction of the appellant was upheld.
Vipin Sanghi, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.09.2008 passed in CC No. 104/06/01 arising out of FIR No.65/2000 PS AC Branch under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act) titled, State Vs. Raj Kumar, whereby the appellant was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) P.C. Act, and against the order on sentence dated 22.09.2008, whereby the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.4,000/- and on failure to pay the same, to undergo simple imprisonment for four months for the commission of offence punishable under Section 7 P.C. Act, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.6000/- and on failure to pay the same, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the commission of offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) P.C. Act. Both substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently and the appellant/convict was given the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution was that on 27.12.2000, the complainant-Prakarti Kumar (PW-6) gave a hand-written complaint (Exhibit PW-6/A) at the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) to Inspector S.S.Sandhu, the Raid Officer (RO), PW-8. In the complaint, the complainant disclosed that he was having his office in the area of P.P.Govindpuri near Madina Masjid, Okhla Road, for the last 8 years and he was running his temporary office therein. There was some vacant land of DDA behind his office on which some persons had constructed their jhuggis. One of the said jhuggiwalas sold his jhuggi to one Liyakat. The said Liyakat wanted to have his direct passage from that jhuggi to the main road, Okhla. Liyakat wanted the complainant to remove his temporary office in which he had put up his table and chairs. At his instance, the accused Raj Kumar – who was in-charge of the said area, was threatening the complainant since 05.12.2000 to vacate his office, or else face false implication in a case. When the complainant requested the accused not to remove his temporary office, the accused-constable Raj Kumar told him on 08.12.2000, that Liyakat had given him Rs. 3,000/- to get vacated the complainant’s office and, if the complainant would give him Rs. 5,000/-, his office would not be removed from there. The complainant further disclosed that he refused to give the bribe to the accused. The accused again came to the complainant on 16.12.2000 but the complainant put him off. On 21.12.2000, again the accused came to him and demanded Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant. Under compulsion, the complainant agreed to pay Rs. 2,000/-. The complainant further disclosed that the accused had asked him to arrange Rs. 2,000/- by 27.12.2000.
3. The further case of the prosecution was that on receipt of this complaint from the complainant, the R.O., PW-8 read the same to the panch witness Gurander Singh (PW-7) posted on official duty in the ACB and got his signatures on the complaint. Thereafter, the complainant produced eight G.C. notes of Rs. 500/- each and ten G.C. notes of Rs.100/- each – (Exhibit P-3). The R.O. recorded their numbers in the pre-raid report (Exhibit PW-6/B). The panch witness (PW-7) tallied the numbers on the G.C. notes Exhibit P-3 with those recorded in Exhibit PW-6/B. The R.O. applied phenolphthalein powder on those GC notes and gave the required demonstration. The notes were returned to the complainant by the RO, who kept the same in the left pocket of his shirt. The R.O. instructed the complainant and the panch witness (PW-7) to remain together. The panch witness (PW-7) was further directed to give a pre-assigned signal by waiving his hand over his turban after the transaction of bribe was completed.
4. The prosecution claimed that at about 1.05 p.m., all the members of the raiding team – including the complainant and panch witness (PW-7) left the ACB in a government vehicle. They all reached
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
