SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 485

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
Bharat Raj Meena, S/o. Sri Ramdev Meena – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation, ACB, Kochi, Ernakulam By Standing Counsel, High Court Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl. A. No. 584 Of 2016
Decided On : 24-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Abraham P. Meachinkara, P. Muraleedharan, Alexander K.C., Margeret K. James, Jayakrishnan P.R., Thomas George.
For the Respondent: Sri. Sreelal Warriar, SC, C.B.I.

IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a pre-requisite to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Headnote:

Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) - 19(1) of the PC Act - Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2014) 14 SCC 295, Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat 1997 KHC 1065, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jiyalal (AIR 2010 SC 1451), State through Inspector of Police A.P. v. K. Narasimhachary (AIR 2006 SC 628), Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2023) 4 SCC 731, Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 2023 SC 1567), M.O. Shamsudhin v. State of Kerala (1995) 3 SCC 351

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding and accepting illegal gratification for effecting transfers. The prosecution alleged that the appellant demanded and accepted bribes from individuals for effecting their transfers.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no sufficient legal evidence to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant, and hence, the conviction and sentence of the appellant were set aside. The appellant was acquitted of all charges.

Issues: The main issue was the lack of sufficient legal evidence to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant, as required under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a pre-requisite to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It also highlighted the significance of valid sanction for prosecution and the need for independent corroboration of evidence from accomplices.

Final Decision: The conviction and sentence of the appellant were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges. The appeal was allowed.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal has been preferred by the accused in CC No.2/2015 on the file of Special Judge, (SPE/CBI) III Ernakulam (for short, 'the trial court') challenging the judgment dated 31/5/2016 convicting and sentencing him under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act').

2. The appellant Bharat Raj Meena was working as Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Palakkad. The case of the prosecution in short is that, while the appellant was working as public servant in the above capacity, from April 2005 to July 2005, he demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.10,000/-each from PW8 C.P.Johnny, PW9 I.K.Girish Kumar and PW11 C.Mohana Krishnan through PW6 Anantha Narayanan as illegal gratification for effecting their transfers.

3. The genesis of the case is as follows:

One Sri.P.P.Nandakumar, Clerk in DSC Office, Palakkad preferred a complaint alleging demand of bribe of Rs.10,000/-by the appellant through PW6 Anantha Narayanan, Constable/RPF Coimbatore, for getting complainant's posting in Palakkad area following his medical decategorization from RPF and subsequent absorption in alternative post as clerk in Personnel Branch under DRM Office, Palakkad. Based on the said complaint, the Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB, Kochi registered FIR vide No.RC19(A)/2005/KER/CBI under Sections 7 and 12 of the PC Act against the appellant and PW6 on 4/8/2005 and entrusted the investigation of the case to PW12. Thereafter, one Dy.S.P., CBI/ACB, Kochi, Sri. Nandakumar Nair and his team laid a trap on the same day itself and at the instance of Dy.S.P./Trap Laying Officer aforesaid, tainted money of bribe was handed over by complainant Sri.P.P.Nandakumar to PW6 which together with some alleged bribe money in an envelope and personal cash and diaries were recovered from PW6 who was then arrested by CBI team. Thereafter, PW12, the investigation officer, after the investigation of CBI case RC19(A)/2005/CBI/KER dated 4/8/2005 registered based on the original complaint dated 4/8/2005 of Sri.P.P.Nandakumar filed three separate final reports on 31/7/2006 bearing Nos.04/SK/19/A/05/KER, 05/SK/19/A/05/KER and 06/SK/19/A/05/KER, before the Court of Special Judge-II, CBI, Kochi for prosecution of the accused under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d), Section 7 and 13(1)(d) and Sections 7 and 13(1)(a) of the PC Act respectively following tender of pardon of the principal accused PW6 and PW7 Abdul Gafoor from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The final report Nos.04/SK/19/A/05/KER and 05/SK/19/A/05/KER against the appellant were then taken up as CC No.2/2014 and CC No.3/2014 respectively by the trial court. The third final report No.06/SK/19/A/05/KER was quadrifurcated into four cases by the trial court under Section 219 of Cr.P.C. while framing the charges. The said cases after splitting up were then taken up as CC No.4/2014, CC No.2/2015, CC No.3/2015 and CC 4/2015 for trial. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges against the appellant in all the above six cases on 26/10/2015. The trial in all cases commenced simultaneously.

4. In CC No.2/2015 which is the subject matter of this appeal, PWs 1 to 12 were examined and Exts.P1 to P39 series were marked on the side of the prosecution. DWs1 to 4 were examined and Exts.D1 to D25 were examined on the side of the defence. After trial, the appellant was found guilty and he was convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(a) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each for the offence under Section 7 of PC Act, 1988 committed against each of PWs8, 9 and 11 and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) of the P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top