B. Tiwari vs State Thr. CBI - 2022 Supreme(Del) 923

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Del) 923

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anu Malhotra, J.
B. Tiwari - Appellant
Versus
State Thr. CBI - Respondent
Crl.A.436/2001
Decided On : 20-07-2022

Advocates appeared:
Ms. Rebecca John, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Kamal Kant Jha & Ms. MeghaBahl, Advocates in person., for the Appellant; Mr. Mridul Jain, SPP, CBI, for the Respondent

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120B - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d) - Appeal against conviction - Conviction of appellant for demanding bribe dismissed on grounds of insufficient evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies. The prosecution failed to establish a conspiracy or a clear demand for bribe. (Paras 73, 78)

(B) Guidelines for proving demand and acceptance of bribe - The prosecution must prove both elements. The non-recovery of bribe from accused and contradictions discredit the prosecution case. (Para 72)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe involving his co-accused related to the possession of an industrial shed. The complainant alleged coerced payment which was unproven and contradicted. (Paras 1, 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
The evidence was not credible enough to support conviction; the required elements of conspiracy and demand were lacking. (From overall judgment)

Issues: Whether the prosecution established demand and conspiracy for bribery.

Ratio Decidendi: An absence of solid evidence and prevalent contradictions between witness accounts weaken the prosecution's claims and the Court upholds the principle of reasonable doubt in favor of the accused.

Result: The appeal is allowed, and the appellant is acquitted.

Table of Content
1. overview of the case facts and charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 8)
2. details regarding sentencing and bail. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 10)
3. accused's denial and defense arguments. (Para 14 , 15 , 19)
4. discussion on contradictory evidence. (Para 36 , 37 , 38)
5. final order allowing the appeal and acquitting the appellant. (Para 78)

JUDGMENT

Anu Malhotra, J. - The appellant B. Tiwari, S/o Sh. P.S. Tiwari vide the present appeal assails the impugned judgment dated 19.05.2001 of the Special Judge, THC, Delhi in RC No.40(A)/93-DLI whereby the appellant herein, posted as Assistant Manager of the Delhi State Industry Development Corporation and co-accused Mr. R.K. Pandey, a private person were both held guilty of the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860, r/w Sections 7 , 13 (2), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for having entered into a criminal conspiracy to receive illegal gratification for showing a favour to Mr. Satish Kumar (the complainant) in pursuance of which conspiracy, the appellant herein being a public servant abused his official position and demanded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- from the complainant by directing him to hand over the bribe money to the accused no.2 i.e. Mr. R.K. Pandey who accordingly accepted the same other than legal remuneration on 11.06.1993.

2. As per the prosecution version, the complainant Mr. Satish Kumar had visited the Khichripur Office of DSIDC for taking possession of a working shed No.40 allotted to him by the DSIDC in Khichripur, for which on 08.06.1993, the accused no.1 i.e. the appellant herein had as per the complaint made a demand for illegal gratification and agreed to accept a sum of Rs. 2,000/- from the complainant to be paid on 11.06.1993 for giving possession of the said shed.

3. The appellant also assails the impugned order on sentence dated 19.05.2001 whereby the appellant herein, the public servant was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two (2)months qua the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, the appellant herein was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of the payment of the said fine, to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo SI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default to further undergo SI for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860, with it having been directed vide the impugned order on sentence that all substantive sentences would run concurrently and he would also be entitled to set off for the period of detention he has undergone during the investigation or trial of the case.

4. The co-convict R.K. Pandey found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 was sentenced to undergo SI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to further undergo SI for a period of 15 days.

5. Vide the impugned order on sentence dated 19.05.2001 itself, the appellant herein and the co-convict were granted bail for filing the appeal against the impugned judgment and sentence.

6. Vide order dated 20.06.2001 in Crl.M.A.1327/2001, the appellant herein was allowed to be released on bail during pendency of the appeal on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge.

7. Vide order dated 23.08.2001, Crl.A.436/2001 assailing the impugned judgment and impugned order on sentence both dated 19.05.2001 was admitted for hearing. The records indicate that Crl.A.388/2001 filed by the co-convict R.K. Pandey had since abated on 21.08.2013 in view of his demise.

8. The pros