2020 Supreme(Del) 1005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Central Bureau Of Investigation - Appellant
Versus
Ram Swaroop Chandel & Ors. - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 1100 of 2019
Decided On : 30-09-2020

Mere possession and recovery of currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe.

Headnote:

The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification, which is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(l)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mere possession and recovery of currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved allegations of corruption against three individuals: Ram Swaroop Chandel (A-1), Sudhir Khera (A-2), and Ashok Kumar (A-3). The prosecution alleged that Chandel, a DGM (Technical) at Delhi Milk Scheme (DMS), exerted undue pressure on staff to show undue favors to milk tankers of M/s Aman Dairy and M/s Tasty Dairy Specialities Limited, and that he conveyed to Khera, who was associated with Tasty Dairy Specialities Limited, about the extension of milk supply contract for a period of ninety days before an order for the same was issued. The prosecution further alleged that Khera delivered the bribe amount of Rs.1,12,500/- to Chandel, who was caught during a trap while delivering the bribe amount to Chandel. The defense argued that the FIR was registered under connivance and collusion with corrupt officials of DMS, against whom Chandel had raised voice for their illegal activities and financial irregularities causing financial loss to the Government of India. The defense also argued that the search was conducted at the spot on 27.02.2018 near Milan Cinema, Moti Nagar and during the personal search only currency notes of Rs.4,630/- was recovered from Chandel's possession and the search memo was prepared accordingly which bears the signature of witnesses as well as Chandel. However, the alleged recovery of Rs.86,000/- from Chandel does not bear his signatures and the recovery memo relating to alleged recovery of Rs.26,500/- from Khera do not bear his signatures and only bear the signatures of the trap team.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification, which is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(l)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court held that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe. The Court also found that the disclosure statements of the accused which succeeds the recovery, are inadmissible in evidence and cannot be the basis of framing of charge.

Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved the demand of illegal gratification, which is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(l)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? 2. Whether mere possession and recovery of currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will bring home the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act? 3. Whether the disclosure statements of the accused which succeeds the recovery, are admissible in evidence and can be the basis of framing of charge?

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification, which is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(l)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court held that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe. The Court also found that the disclosure statements of the accused which succeeds the recovery, are inadmissible in evidence and cannot be the basis of framing of charge.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition filed by the CBI challenging the order of the Trial Court which discharged the accused.