Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 214
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
State – Appellant
Versus
Prempal and Others – Respondents
Crl. Appeal No. 93 of 2012
Decided On : 13-02-2018
For the Appellants : Ms. Neelam Sharma, Bhoop Singh.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Mr. Anurag Jain.
The judgment established that the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act must be drawn when money is recovered from a public servant, shifting the burden of proof to the accused to explain the circumstances. The failure to rebut this presumption can lead to conviction.
Headnote:
Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 7, Section 13(1)(d), Section 13(2)
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the acquittal of three respondents charged under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that respondent no. 1 accepted a bribe on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3, leading to a raid and subsequent arrest.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Judge acquitted the accused due to lack of evidence of demand, credibility issues with the key witness, and the complainant's inability to testify. The State appealed, arguing that the evidence was not properly appreciated and demanded a reversal of the acquittal.
Issues: The key issues were the sufficiency of evidence to prove demand, the credibility of the witness testimony, and the impact of the complainant's absence on the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court found that the testimony of the key witness, PW-3, along with the raiding officer's testimony, provided sufficient evidence of demand and acceptance of the bribe. The court emphasized that the Trial Judge's failure to appreciate the evidence correctly led to a wrongful acquittal.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted the respondents under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, imposing minimum sentences and fines.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 17.12.2009 wherein the Court of Special Judge (PC Act) had acquitted the three respondents. The aforenoted three respondents had been charged for the offence under Section 7 and Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the P.C. Act).
2. The version of the prosecution is that respondent no. 1 Prem Pal on the asking of respondent nos. 2 and 3 (Ved Prakash and Suresh Kumar Kaushik) had accepted the bribe money of Rs. 900/- from the complainant Shyam Sunder Kohli. This was pursuant to a raid having been organized by the appellant on the complaint of the complainant. The allegation was that on 11.5.2001 at 2.45 p.m. Prem Pal (who was working as a Safai Karamchari in the NDMC) came to the restaurant of the complainant at Connaught Place wherein he had collected the bribe amount of Rs. 900/- from the complainant and this was on the asking and at the behest of respondent no. 2 and 3 i.e. Ved Prakash and Suresh Kumar Kaushik (working as sanitary inspectors in the NDMC). The accused Prem Pal was apprehended at the spot. His handwash which had been obtained was sent to FSL, Malviya Nagar who vide its report dated 20.6.2001 (Ex.PW-4/B) had opined that the handwash of the accused Prem Pal gave a positive result of handling phenolphthalein coated GC notes. This report was positive and in favour of the prosecution.
3. The prosecution in support of its case had examined 13 witnesses of whom the star witness was PW-3 (B.P. Dutta) who was the Panch Witness. The complainant Shyam Sunder Kohli had died by then; he could not come into the witness box and thus could not prove the complaint. The TLO Inspector M.A. Salam was examined as PW-5. PW-4 was also a member of the raiding party. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution were largely formal; relating to the sanctions which had been accorded qua respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 by their employers.
4. In the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they had pleaded innocence stating that they had been falsely implicated. No evidence was led in defence.
5. The Trial Judge after examining the entire gamut of evidence both oral and documentary had come to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Demand which an essential ingredient of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act had not been proved. The complainant had not come into the witness box; this had weighed in the mind of the Trial Court noting that the contents of the complaint could not be proved; a mere recovery of the GC notes from respondent no. 1 (Prem Pal) would not be sufficient to hold all the three respondents liable for the offence for which they had been charged. Testimony of PW-3 had also been discarded. The accused accordingly stood acquitted.
6. The State has filed an appeal. On behalf of the prosecution, it has been argued that the testimony of PW-3 and PW-5 has not been appreciated in the correct perspective. Merely because the complainant could not come into the witness box would not by itself lead to an acquittal. The demand of the complainant was implicit in the testimony of PW-3 who was an eye-witness to the entire incident and had in fact witnessed the money being paid on the demand of Prem Pal which had been accepted by Prem Pal and this acceptance was at the behest of Ved Prakash and Suresh Kumar Kaushik, it was for their benefit. The evidence not having been examined in the correct perspective, this is a fit case where the judgment of the Trial Court needs to be reversed and the accused persons are liable to be convicted.
7. On behalf of respondent no. 1, it is pointed out that the demand is missing and this fact has been correctly appreciated by the Trial Court. Reliance has been place upon a judgment of the Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported as Kailash and Others vs. State of M.P. 2007 Cri. L.J. 1329. This is to subs
