Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SITTING AT LUCKNOW
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI J.
Basant Kumar Bihani – Appellant
Versus
State Union Of India –Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1553 of 2023
Decided on : 16-01-2024
Key Points: - Prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act (!) (!) . - Electronic evidence must be accompanied by a certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act to be admissible; failure renders it inadmissible (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Supreme Court/Constitution Bench guidance: certificate under 65-B(4) is mandatory for admissibility of electronic records; in some circumstances, courts may permit late production or require production via 311 CrPC but generally, certificate is essential for admissibility of electronic records in criminal trials (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - If electronic primary evidence is not filed with certificate, conviction cannot rely on that evidence; the court must ensure caution in reliance on electronic records (!) (!) (!) (!) - (!) . - In Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court clarified that absence of direct/compliant evidence of demand may still permit inferential proof under certain circumstances, but the sine qua non remains proof of demand and acceptance (!) (!) (!) . - The appellate court acquitted Basant Kumar Bihani due to failure to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt and inadmissibility of the electronic records; judgment sets aside conviction (!) (!) - (!) .
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Pranjal Krishna, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Shiv P. Shukla, the learned Counsel for the respondent-C.B.I.
2. The instant Appeal has been filed challenging the validity of the judgment and order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), CBI Court No. 3, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 02 of 2011 titled State versus Basant Kumar Bihani, arising out of RC No. 0062010A002 under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), Police Station CBI/ACB Lucknow.
3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Sri Murad Ali, husband of the complainant Noor Fatima, had died on 10.04.2004. On 20.07.2004 Noor Fatima had given a letter stating that she will apply for compassionate appointment of her elder daughter Khushboo as soon as she attains majority. On 02.12.2006 she gave another letter stating that though the elder daughter had attained majority, she did not want to accept compassionate appointment as she wanted to pursue higher studies and she requested that her elder daughter be given appointment after she completes higher studies. On 30.05.2007, Noor Fatima gave another letter stating that as her elder daughter was keen to pursue higher studies, a seat be kept reserved for the younger daughter till she attains majority and completes her education. On 09.05.2008 the appellant’s predecessor sent a reply stating that as per the Rules, the younger daughter could not be appointed and the complainant herself can take the appointment.
4. The complainant gave another letter on 04.06.2008 stating that her elder daughter was getting married and the name of her younger daughter Roshni be registered for compassionate appointment.
5. In furtherance of the appellant’s comments, his subordinate officer replied on 21.02.2009 that the above request was not as per the rules.
6. The complainant again gave letters dated 09.10.2009 & 10.04.2009 requesting for registration of the name of her younger daughter Roshni for the appointment and the appellant had rejected the request by writing a note on the letter itself.
7. At 05:59 p.m. on 07.10.2010, the complainant sent a complaint through fax, alleging that some unknown person had met her as a messenger of the appellant and had asked her to talk to the appellant with respect to the appointment of her daughter. She stated that some calls took place during the period 01.01.2010 and 07.01.2010 between the appellant and herself, wherein the appellant had demanded Rs.2,50,000/-as bribe for compassionate appointment of her second daughter. On the aforesaid complaint, the C.B.I. registered a First Information Report (FIR) at 06:30 p.m. on 07.01.2010.
8. On 08.10.2010 a team of C.B.I. officers reached Varanasi for trap proceedings. It arranged two independent witnesses from State Bank of India. Pre-trap proceedings started in SBI Guest House at Sigra, Varanasi at 05:30 p.m. the complainant reached the guest house between 06:00 to 06:15 p.m. and the pre-trap proceedings concluded at 07:15 p.m. and the C.B.I. team left for the official bungalow of the appellant.
9. The trap proceedings were conducted between 08:00 and 08:15 p.m. and the C.B.I. claims to have caught the appellant red handed while demanding and accepting from the complainant Smt. Noor Fatima bribe of Rs. 50,000/-, under impression of the same being Rs.2,50,000/-. A charge sheet was filed against the appellant u/s 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act on 20.01.2011.
10. On 18.07.2011 the Trial Court had framed the following charges against the appellant: Firstly, that in the year 2010, the appellant was working as Chief Commercial Officer, Locomotive Workshop, Railway, Varanasi and he had demanded Rs.2,50,000/-from the complainant Noor Fatima, as bribe for giving compassionate appointment to her younger daughter. As the complainant had only Rs 50,000/-, on 08.01.2010 the C.B.I. team arranged the Rs 50,000/-in fiv
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and electronic evidence must comply with Section 65-B of t....
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which can be established through direct and circumstantial evidence.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; failure to comply with procedural requirements and evidential standards results in acquittal.
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond a reasonable doubt, and the invocation of Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is essential for establishing the offen....
The court upheld the conviction for bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act based on sufficient circumstantial evidence, affirming that the absence of direct evidence does not negate the prose....
Demand for illegal gratification is essential to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of money is insufficient.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
