Mahal Singh vs State of Delhi - 2023 Supreme(Del) 3555

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 3555

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J.
Mahal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Delhi – Respondent
Cr. A. 618 of 2000
Decided On : 01-09-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Anurag Andley, Mr. Kshitij Arora, Mr. Vikalp Sharma, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for State with SI Naresh Kumar, PS Anti Corruption Branch.

Headnote:
Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act - 7, 13(i)(d) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court found the appellant guilty under section 7 and section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The judgment discusses the necessity to prove demand followed by acceptance of illegal gratification to establish the guilt of the accused under these sections. The court emphasized the importance of proving the foundational facts by relevant oral and documentary evidence, and the need for corroboration of evidence in cases involving witnesses with poor moral fibre and criminal antecedents. The judgment also highlighted the distinction between mandatory and discretionary presumptions under Section 20 of the Act, and the conditions under which such presumptions can be raised.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted for offences under section 7 and section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on the prosecution's case that he demanded and accepted a bribe. The complainant alleged that the appellant demanded money for arresting a person involved in a quarrel with her brother. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of the complainant, who had several criminal antecedents and was an interested witness. The court found that the evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the complainant's testimony lacked corroboration and credibility.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the complainant, the key witness, lacked corroboration and credibility, and her criminal antecedents raised doubts about her reliability. The court also emphasized the importance of proving foundational facts and the need for corroboration in cases involving witnesses with poor moral fibre and criminal antecedents. The court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
Issues: The key issues in the case were the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant, the credibility of the complainant as the main witness, and the necessity for corroboration of evidence in cases involving witnesses with poor moral fibre and criminal antecedents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution must prove the demand followed by acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the importance of corroboration of evidence in cases involving witnesses with poor moral fibre and criminal antecedents. The court also highlighted the distinction between mandatory and discretionary presumptions under Section 20 of the Act, and the conditions under which such presumptions can be raised.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, and communicated the order to the concerned jail Superintendent and the Trial Court.

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 27.09.2000 and order of sentence dated 29.09.2000 passed by Special Judge, Delhi in Case No. 283/1994, whereby the appellant has been found guilty for the commission of the offences under section 7 and section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short `the Act') and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year on each count and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- on each count. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

THE FACTUAL PRISM

2. As per the prosecution, on 29.05.1991, Complainant's (Smt. Lata Monga) brother namely Krishan Kumar had a quarrel with her neighbours i.e. Laxmi Narain and Manoj Kumar in which Manoj Kumar had given sword blow to the Krishan Kumar while Laxmi Narain caught hold of Krishan Kumar and thereafter Krishan Kumar received injury on the right side upper part of the eye. On the complaint, investigation was entrusted to the appellant/accused SI Mahal Singh PS Gandhi Nagar. When the appellant visited the house of the complainant on 03.06.1991 at 11:45 pm, the complainant asked the appellant as to why Manoj Kumar had not been arrested till yet. On her query, appellant demanded Rs.2000/- and would do the work in their favour. As the complainant was unable to pay this much amount in one go, the Appellant asked the complainant to pay Rs.1000/- next day on 04.06.1991 at about 6:00 pm in the evening at tea shop near police station and give balance amount later on. She was against giving bribe but agreed to pay the said bribe amount out of helplessness.

3. Complainant talked to SHO of PS Gandhi Nagar about this but he did not pay any heed. Thereafter, the Appellant demanded the above bribe money and told her that it was being done as per desire of SHO.

4. On 04.06.1991, Complainant went to Anti-Corruption Branch, where her statement was recorded (Ex. PW2/A) in presence of panch witness namely Hemant Singh Bani. Thereafter, complainant produced GC notes Rs.1000/- in the denomination of Rs.100/- each, the number were mentioned in the raid report. Phenolphthalein powder was applied to the GC notes which were got touched with the right hand of the panch witness. Right hand of the panch witnesses was dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate which turned pink. Significance of both the chemicals were explained to the panch witness and the complainant stating whosoever would touch these GC notes or keep the same in his pocket, his hand or pocket if dipped in solution of sodium carbonate, the said solution would turn pink. Requisite instructions were imparted to both the complainant and the panch witness stating that the complainant was to give bribe money to the person concerned on specific demand and that she would talk with the appellant in such manner that the panch witness might hear the conversation and see the transaction of passing of the bribe money and panch witness was directed to remain close with the complainant and give signal by moving his hand over his head only on his satisfaction that the money had been received by the appellant as bribe.

5. The GC notes were handed over to the complainant who kept the same in left pocket of her kurta. Raid party was organised consisting of complainant, panch witness, Raid officer, Inspector BM Sharma, HC Balbir Singh, Constable Anand Mani and Rajinder Singh, and reached the spot, while on reaching the spot, complainant and panch witness went inside the shop and after seeing the shop, they went to Police Station Gandhi Nagar while the raiding team waited for the signal from the panch witness.

6. At about 6:25 pm, one sikh gentlemen in white clothes came along with complainant and panch witness out of the police station and went to Krishna restaurant and sat therein. The signal of the panch witness was still awaited. At about 6:40 pm, panch witness came out of the restaurant and gave pre-arranged sig