Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
Ram Narain Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 7725 of 2006
Decided On : 01-05-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ram Narain Pandey.
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Section 7, Section 13(2)
Fact of the Case:
The accused-appellant, an Account Officer, was convicted for demanding and accepting a bribe for processing pending bills of a school. The prosecution alleged that the accused demanded 10% of the bill amount as a bribe, leading to a trap where the accused and a co-accused were caught red-handed with the bribe amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt. It noted discrepancies in the evidence and concluded that the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Issues: The key issue was whether the prosecution could prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution must establish the demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the accused-appellant was acquitted of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, giving him the benefit of doubt.
JUDGMENT :
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Ram Narain Pandey, appellant in person and Sri Ratnendu Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State.
2. The present appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.11.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Varanasi in Special Criminal Case No. 110 of 1997, State vs. Ram Narain Pandey and Another, arising out of Case Crime No. 210 of 1995, whereby the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act for two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months additional imprisonment and under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act for three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months additional imprisonment with direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. As per the prosecution case, the accused-appellant in the year 1995 was posted as Account Officer in the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Fatehpur and the co-accused Santosh Kumar Srivastava (since dead) was posted as Account Clerk in the said office. The complainant, Ram Prasad Gupta was working as Assistant Teacher in the year 1995 in Adesh Shodh Vidyalaya, Chivlahan, Fatehpur. Salary, arrears of Dearness Allowance and other dues of the teachers and employees of the aforesaid school were due and payable to them. The bills for payment of salary, arrears of Dearness Allowance and other dues were sent by the said school to the office of the Account Officer. The amount of these bills was not paid and both the accused demanded 10% amount of the bills as bribe for processing the bills for payment. The complainant and other teachers and employees were not willing to pay the bribe amount. However, under pressure they agreed to pay Rs.4,000/- to the accused-appellant and Rs.1,000/- to co-accused Santosh Kumar Srivastava (deceased) as bribe amount. This amount was to be paid before payment of the bills and rest of the amount was to be paid after the payment was received by the complainant and other teachers and employees of the school. The bribe amount was to be paid at the residence of the accused-appellant and he gave his residential address in his hand writing on a piece of paper to the complainant.
4. Since the complainant and other teachers did not want to give the bribe amount to the accused, the complainant wrote a complaint dated 1.5.1995 to the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Allahabad. The said complaint after necessary inquiry from the complainant, was given to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Allahabad for conducting the trap proceedings. Sri Prahlad Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Allahabad asked the complainant to come to his office with amount of Rs.5,000/- along with witnesses on 5.5.1995. The complainant along with bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- with witnesses Budhi Prakash Maurya and Ram Vilas Prajapati went to the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Allahabad. The address given by the accused-appellant in his hand writing on a piece of paper to the complainant was given to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Allahabad and Rs.5,000/- i.e. the bribe amount, out of which Rs.4,000/- to be paid to the accused-appellant and Rs.1,000/- to be paid to co-accused Santosh Kumar Srivastava (deceased) was also given to him. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Allahabad put his small initials on the said currency notes and they were treated with phenolphthalein powder. Rs.5,000/- were separated in two bundles i.e. Rs.4,000/- and Rs.1,000/-. Thereafter, pre-trap proceedings were conducted.
5. On asking, the accused-appellant told the complainant that he should come at 11.30 AM to his office and the work would be done there. On 6.5.1995 on asking of the accused-appel
