Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
Dinesh Chand Gupta - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.A. 639/2011 & 656/2011
Decided On : 23-05-2016
Prevention of Corruption Act - Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: PC Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - The court discussed the essential ingredients of Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, emphasizing the requirement of demand or request for a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the public servant as a primary requisite for establishing the offence. The court highlighted the legal position established in previous cases regarding the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as vital elements necessary for conviction under the PC Act.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of two appellants under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution's case revolved around the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellants in connection with the issuance of a recovery certificate. The complainant, Ajay Gupta, alleged that one of the appellants demanded a bribe for delivering the recovery certificate, leading to a raid by the Anti Corruption Branch and subsequent arrest of the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellants. It noted inconsistencies in the evidence, lack of specific allegations regarding the timing of the demand, and the absence of examination of the complainant. The court also highlighted the absence of motivation for the demand and the lack of evidence connecting one of the appellants to the alleged crime. As a result, the court held that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants.
Issues: The key issues in the case included the establishment of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the sufficiency of evidence to prove the guilt of the appellants, and the inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of proof of demand or request for a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the public servant as a primary requisite for establishing the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It highlighted the legal position established in previous cases regarding the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as vital elements necessary for conviction under the PC Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants, and ordered the refund of any paid fines. The court concluded that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants, and they were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Sunita Gupta, J.
1. These criminal appeals are directed against the impugned judgment dated 10th May, 2011 in CC No. 64/2011 arising out of FIR 61/2003 u/s 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as PC Act) and Section 120 B IPC registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi passed by learned Special Judge-07, (Central), Delhi vide which Dinesh Chand Gupta(A-1) was convicted for offence u/s 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act and accused Sudhir Kumar (A-2) was convicted for offence u/s 7 of PC Act. Vide order dated 11th May, 2011, A-1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence punishable u/s 7 of the PC Act and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence punishable u/s 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. A-2 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence punishable u/s 7 of PC Act in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
2. Aggrieved by the decision of learned Special Judge, separate appeals bearing No. 639/2011 and 656/2011 were preferred by the appellants. Since both the appeals arise out of a common judgment, hence they are taken up together.
3. The case of the prosecution as unfolded during the trial is that the complainant-Ajay Gupta was employed as an accountant earlier in Delhi Automobiles situated in Jhandewalan and was terminated from his service in the year 1985 for which he filed a case in the Labour Court which was decided in his favour and order for issuance of Recovery Certificate was passed by the Assistant Labour Officer on 23rd June, 2003. Since the said Certificate was not issued, complainant met A-2, the dealing Clerk in his office who demanded bribe of Rs.1000/- for delivering the said Recovery Certificate. The first instalment of Rs.500/- was to be paid on 9th December, 2003. However, he was against giving bribe so he approached the office of Anti Corruption Branch and gave a written complaint regarding the demand of bribe by A2 from him. The said written complaint was given to PW8- Inspector B.S. Yadav in the presence of PW4 Sh. Ghanshyam.
4. The complainant had brought 5 government currency notes (hereinafter referred to as ‘G.C. Notes’) in the denominations of Rs.100/- each and handed over the same to Inspector B.S. Yadav who noted down the serial number of the said G.C. Notes. Thereafter phenolphthalein powder was applied to the said GC Notes and the same were recorded in the pre-raid proceedings and its effect was demonstrated. The tainted GC Notes were given to the complainant-Ajay Kumar who kept the same in left pocket of his jacket. As per instructions, panch witness- Ghanshyam-PW4 was directed to remain close to the complainant-Ajay Kumar to overhear conversation between the complainant and the appellant. He was further instructed to give a signal to the raiding party by hurling his hand over his head when the bribe amount had actually been given by the complainant.
5. At about 12:30 pm, Inspector BS Yadav along with complainant-Ajay Gupta, panch witness-Ghanshyam, Inspector M.A. Salam, SI Vijay, Constable Raju and other members of the raiding party left Anti Corruption Branch for 5, Shamnath Marg in a Govt. vehicle and reached there at about 12:45 pm. The complainant and panch witness were reminded about the instructions given to them in the pre-raid proceedings and were sent inside 5 Shamnath Marg. Inspector BS Yadav along with members of raiding party followed them and took suitable positions. At about 1:00 pm, on receipt of pre determined signal from panch-witness, Inspector B.S. Yadav along with raiding team reac
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
