Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 613
High Court of Delhi
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
Mahipal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
CRL. A. No. 341 of 2008
Decided On : 20-04-2015
For the Appellant:Naresh C. Sharma, Chetan Swarup, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.
Headnote:
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - SECTION 7 AND 13(1)(D) - DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE OF ILLEGAL GRATIFICATION - ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS - CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE - PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 20 - MANDATORY - CONVICTION - JUSTIFIED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a police officer, was convicted by the trial court for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 2,000/- from the complainant in order to settle a dispute between the complainant and his uncle. The appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence, namely, demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and that the corroborative evidence was unreliable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had demanded and accepted the bribe. The court relied on the testimony of the complainant, the panch witness, and the raid officer, as well as the corroborative evidence, including the pre-raid and post-raid proceedings, the seizure memo, and the FSL report. The court also found that the mandatory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, had been raised, and that the appellant had failed to provide any explanation to rebut the presumption.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had established the essential ingredients of the offence, namely, demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. 2. Whether the corroborative evidence was reliable. 3. Whether the mandatory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, had been raised.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had demanded and accepted the bribe. The court relied on the testimony of the complainant, the panch witness, and the raid officer, as well as the corroborative evidence, including the pre-raid and post-raid proceedings, the seizure memo, and the FSL report. 2. The court found that the corroborative evidence was reliable. The court noted that the complainant and the panch witness were ordinary citizens with no reason to falsely implicate the appellant, and that the pre-raid and post-raid proceedings, the seizure memo, and the FSL report were all consistent with the prosecution's case. 3. The court held that the mandatory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, had been raised, and that the appellant had failed to provide any explanation to rebut the presumption.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant.
Key Points: - The prosecution proved demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused beyond reasonable doubt, supported by PW-6, PW-7, PW-9 and corroborative pre- and post-raid materials, including FSL report (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The hand and pant pocket washes turned pink with phenolphthalein test, corroborating that the accused received the bribe and stored it in his pocket; this supports the panchnama and post-raid proceedings as evidence not hit by Section 161/162 Cr.P.C. (!) (!) [p_11/C] (!) . - Even though PW-6 and PW-7 turned partly hostile, their testimony was considered corroborated by pre-raid and post-raid documents, raid officer testimony, and FSL report; hostile testimony can be relied upon if corroborated (!) (!) (!) . - The court held that the mandatory presumption under Section 20 PC Act is raised when demand and acceptance are established, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut; the accused failed to provide a defence to rebut the presumption (!) (!) . - The conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) PC Act is upheld; appeal dismissed; the appellant must surrender to complete the sentence (!) . - Complainant’s complaint and pre-raid / post-raid records show that the money was demanded and accepted by the accused, not by any other person present (!) (!) (!) .
How to establish demand and conscious acceptance of illegal gratification under PC Act?
What is the role of corroborative evidence and hostilities of witnesses in proving a trap case?
What is the effect of mandatory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act on conviction?
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03.04.2008 delivered by Sh. AS Yadav, learned Special Judge, Delhi in Corruption Case no. 30/03, by which the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under sections (u/s) 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’) punishable under Section 13(2) PC Act. By the order on sentence dated 04.04.2008, the appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for a period of three years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment of the fine - Simple Imprisonment (SI) for two months u/s 7 of PC Act. For offences punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for three years along with a fine of Rs 10,000/-, and in default of payment of the said fine further SI for two months. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution is that- the complainant (PW-6), Mohd. Zakir, purchased a room at the address- 618, Gali Telian, Ganj Meer Khan, behind Delite Cinema, Delhi for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- from his uncle, Abdul Gaffar, vide an agreement to sell. However, the complainant’s uncle did not execute the documents. On 28.10.2002, Zayeed, son of the complainant’s uncle Abdul Gaffar along with his friends assaulted the complainant, and attempted to take the agreement to sell back from him. The Police was informed of the said incident by the brother-in-law of the complainant (wherein complainant was assaulted), and the accused, ASI Mahipal Singh, reached the spot of the incident. The complainant was, thereafter, taken to LNJP Hospital for examination.
3. The further case of the prosecution is that the complainant was beaten up by the accused in the Police Station, and was asked to compromise the matter with his uncle, Abdul Gaffar. The accused took Rs. 500/- from the complainant. Thereafter, the accused called the complainant a number of times to ask him regarding the status of the compromise. On 01.11.2002, the complainant (PW-6) went to PS Chandni Mahal, where he met the accused. The accused demanded Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant (PW-6) for getting the matter settled. When the complainant showed his inability to pay the money – as he is poor, the accused told the complainant to pay Rs. 2,000/- by the end of the day, and Rs. 3,000/- after the compromise came about. As the complainant was not willing to pay the aforesaid bribe, he went to the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) office where his complaint (Ex. PW6/A) was recorded in presence of the panch witness, Satpal Rohilla (PW-7).
4. After lodging of the complaint, the complainant (PW-6) produced 4 GC notes of Rs.500/- denomination and gave them to PW-9, the Raid Officer. The serial numbers on the GC notes were noted down in the pre-raid proceedings report (Ex. PW7/A). Thereafter, the panch witness (PW-7) and the complainant (PW-6) were explained and demonstrated the reaction of Phenolphthalein powder with colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate by the Raid Officer (PW-9). The Phenolphthalein treated GC notes were given to the complainant and he kept them inside his pocket, with directions to hand over the GC notes to the accused only on his specific demand of the money, or to any other persons as per his directions, and not otherwise. The panch witness (PW-7) was directed to remain close to the complainant (PW-6), to be able to hear the conversation between the accused and the complainant (PW-6), and to give the pre-determined signal to the raiding party, on acceptance of bribe by the accused.
5. The Raiding party, including the panch witness (PW-7) and the complainant (PW-6), left for PS Chandni Mahal from the ACB office in a government vehicle at around 6:00 PM on 01.11.2002. The vehicle was parked at a distance from PS Chandni Mahal, where the raiding party waited, while the panch witness and complainant went towards the police station. At about 7:20 PM, the Raid Of
