Back
2018 Supreme(All) 1707
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Rekha Dikshit, J.
Anil Kumar Gupta - Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1037 of 2015
Decided On : 14-05-2018
Arun Sinha, Adv., Aftab Ahmad, Adv., Anoop Trivedi, Adv., Brijesh Kumar Singh, Adv., Dev Prakash Mishra, Adv., Prashant Vardhan, Adv., Umesh Vats, Adv., Bireshwar Nath, Adv.
The demand for illegal gratification must be proved to establish an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Mere possession and recovery of currency notes without proof of demand will not suffice. The burden of proof placed upon the accused to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the Act is to prove his case by a preponderance of probability.
Headnote:
This case involves the conviction of the accused-appellant, Anil Kumar Gupta, under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case was registered based on a written complaint regarding the demand of a bribe for the return of Earnest Money Deposit/Security Deposit. The prosecution presented evidence including witness testimonies, documentary evidence, and the arrest of the accused during a trap. The trial court found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment. However, the High Court analyzed the evidence and found that the demand for illegal gratification was not proved, the acceptance and recovery of the bribe money were not tenable, and the pre-trap and post trap proceedings were highly suspicious. The court also noted discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence presented by the prosecution. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant on the benefit of doubt.
Rekha Dikshit, J.
This appeal assails the correctness of the judgment and order dated 14.08.2015 passed by learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Court No.1, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.26 of 2009, registered as R.C.No.20(A)/2009, under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 C.B.I./A.C.B., Lucknow, whereby the Special Judge has convicted the accused-appellant namely, Anil Kumar Gupta and sentenced him under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act for three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo three months additional imprisonment and under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act for five years' rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, to undergo six months' additional imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The facts and circumstances leading to this case in a nutshell are that this case was registered under the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.), Lucknow Branch on 28.05.2009 on the basis of written complaint lodged by Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, Proprietor M/s Ankit Udyog, 171, Vinay Nagar, Sector-3, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh regarding demand of Rs.1,000/- as bribe for processing of the matter pertaining to return of Earnest Money Deposit/Security Deposit (EMD/SD) by the complainant.
3. On the premise of complaint dated 28.05.2009, the C.B.I. team consisting of Shri Brijesh Kumar, Inspector, Shri L.B. Tiwari, Inspector, Alok Kumar Sahi, Inspector, A.K. Singh and Govind Singh Bisht was constituted which along with two independent witnesses and the complainant, assembled on 29.05.2009, at Suit No.4, C.T.X. Exchange, BSNL Inspection Quarter, Allahabad at 07:30 hours. Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta representative of Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, the complainant was introduced to the witnesses as well as the members of CBI team, and the written complaint dated 28.05.2009 was read over to all of them. Since the complaint discloses the demand of bribe of Rs.1,000/- by Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, Office Superintendent, O/o Assistant Material Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad in connection with processing of pending matter for return of EMD/SD amounting to Rs.19,000/- deposited by the complainant with the Railways, in connection with supply of four hydraulic machines to wagon repair workshop, North Central Railway, Jhansi made by him during the year 2008, Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta was acting on behalf of complainant, as the complainant was busy in some urgent work at Jhansi.
4. After the conversation between the accused-appellant and Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, the deal was fixed for 01:00p.m. in front of Allahabad High Court, where Shri Prakash Narayan Mishra, witness was to accompany Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta as shadow witness. Finally Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, appellant came at 02:15p.m. at the fixed place, where Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta extended the bribe amount to him, who kept it in the left side pocket of his pants. Immediately, he was caught red handed by the C.B.I. and to avoid any untoward incident at the place of occurrence, the C.B.I. team proceeded towards inspection house, where the rest of the formalities of hand-wash etc. were completed and the appellant was officially arrested.
5. The case was registered on 28.05.2009 at 01:30 p.m. at RC.No.20(A)/2009 and assigned to Shri Brijesh Kumar, Inspector, C.B.I. for further action. The investigation was conducted by Shri G.K. Dubey and Shri Diwakar Pandey. Both Inspector, C.B.I., after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charge against the accused-appellant under aforesaid sections was framed on 29.07.2011, to which he denied and claimed trial.
6. To bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses, namely PW-1 Shri Satpal Singh (Sanctioning Authority), PW-2 Shri Satish
