Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 642
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
Anil Kumar Verma – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
CRL. A. No. 148 of 2009
Decided On : 24-04-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Davender Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Lovkesh Sawhney, APP
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroboration of evidence in corruption cases, the significance of spot proceedings and witness testimonies, and the need for conscious acceptance of bribe to establish the offence of corruption.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Corruption - Section 7 & 13 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and their interpretations. The court highlighted the requirement of conscious acceptance of bribe, the significance of spot proceedings, and the need for corroboration of evidence in establishing the offence of corruption.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for demanding and accepting a bribe during execution proceedings of a money decree. The prosecution's case was based on the complainant's claim that the appellant demanded a bribe and accepted a partial amount, which was contradicted by the appellant's spot proceedings and witness testimonies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the demand and conscious acceptance of the bribe by the appellant. The court raised doubts about the credibility of the complainant's testimony and highlighted contradictions in the evidence, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of the complainant's testimony, the reliability of witness accounts, and the interpretation of the spot proceedings and report prepared by the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for corroboration of evidence in corruption cases and highlighted the significance of spot proceedings and witness testimonies in establishing the offence of corruption. The court also considered the possibility of the complainant's grudge against the appellant and the lack of secrecy in the alleged transaction of giving and taking a bribe.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant due to insufficient evidence and raised doubts about the credibility of the complainant's testimony.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.01.2009 passed by the Special Judge, Delhi in CC No.145/08, titled “State V. Anil Kumar Verma” arising out of FIR No.12/2001 under Section 7 & 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the Act), whereby the appellant was convicted of the offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.2500/- under Section 7 of the Act, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months. In respect of conviction under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2), he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.2500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution taken note of in the impugned judgment is to the following effect:
A. That Sh. Kishan Lal Garg , father of complainant Sh. Ravinder Lal Garg was tenant in respect of first floor of premises No. C-39 Shivaji Park, Punjab Bagh, N. Delhi. Litigation was going on between the landlord and tenant and a decree for recovery of Rs. 65000/- was passed on 27.2.2001 in favour of landlord and against the tenant from the court of Ms. Navidita Anil Sharma Ld. ARC, Delhi.
B. On 13.3.2001 complainant was informed by his wife that certain officials have come from the court for execution of decree and they are asking to vacate the premises. Thereafter, complainant came to his house and talked to accused Anil Kumar who was the ballif. Accused demanded bribe of Rs. 5000/- for non execution of the warrants, and when complainant expressed his inability to pay Rs. 5000/-, he agreed to accept Rs. 2000/-. On that day complainant was having Rs. 1000/- only, hence he gave Rs. 1000/- to the accused and accused asked the complainant to pay the balance amount on 14.3.01 any time after 10.00 AM in room no. 104, Tis Hazari Courts and accused threatened him that in case bribe amount was not paid then he would come for execution of the warrant on 14.3.2001.
C. The complainant was against giving of bribe . He went to Anti Corruption Branch and got his complaint Ex. PW5/A recorded in presence of panch witness D. K. Sandhu.
D. The prosecution’s case further is that the complainant had brought 2 GC notes of Rs. 500/- each and handed over the same to the Raid Officer Insp. Makkhan Singh (PW7). The Raid Officer recorded the serial numbers of those GC notes in his pre raid report Ex. PW5/B. Raid Officer applied phenolphthalein powder on those GC notes and gave a demonstration to the panch witness and complainant by touching the hand of panch witness with those treated GC notes and took wash of hand of panch witness in the solution of sodium carbonate and that solution turned into pink. The solution was thrown away. Treated GC notes were given to the complainant who kept the same in the pocket of his shirt. Thereafter all of them washed their hands. Thereafter Raid Officer instructed panch witness to remain close with the complainant and to overhear the conversation after being satisfied that bribe had actually been given, panch witness was asked to give a signal by hurling his hand on his head. The complainant was instructed to remain close to the panch witness and to do the transaction in such a manner that he would be able to see the transaction and hear the conversation.
E. Prosecution’s case further is that at about 1.45 PM the Raid Officer, complainant, panch witness, Insp. Veer Singh Tyagi along with other members of raiding party left Anti Corruption Branch in a government gypsy and reached at Tis Hazari Courts at 2.00 PM. The government vehicle was parked at some distance. Insp. Veer Singh Tyagi along with driver remained in the government vehicle. Complainant and panch witness left the vehicle, and Raid Officer along with
