Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SURENDER, J.
Mohd. Fakruddin – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 149 of 2008
Decided On : 21-07-2022
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2), 20 - Appeal - Demand of bribe - Whether demand was proved - Whether acceptance was proved - Whether there was any pending work - Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in facts and circumstances, even though de facto complainant turned hostile to prosecution case, court below had correctly convicted on basis of other evidence available.
Findings of Court:
Prosecution has failed to prove demand and acceptance by producing evidence, which is convincing and beyond reasonable doubt. Mere recovery of amount from accused officer will not suffice to draw a presumption under Section 20 of Act of 1988 to shift burden on to accused officer. As already stated, prosecution has failed to discharge its initial burden of demanding or accepting or agreeing to accept or attempt to accept bribe amount, for which reason, presumption cannot be raised and as a consequence, question of accused officer discharging any burden to prove innocence does not arise.
Results: Criminal Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
K. SURENDER, J.
1. The appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act of 1988’) vide judgment in C.C. No. 37 of 2001 dated 29.01.2008 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE&ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that PW-6 had taken a stall in the All India Industrial Exhibition for running ‘Egg Stall’ in the name and style of ‘Sai Krishna Egg Point’ for selling egg based products by paying the bid amount. However, from the beginning, the appellant, who was Sub-Inspector posted in the Out Post of Industrial Exhibition, used to visit the stall and harass PW-6 for paying bribe (mamool). Prior to 01.02.1999, the accused officer demanded an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards the said mamool and again the accused officer went to the shop on 01.02.1999 and threatened PW-6 that he would complain to the vigilance department and to see to that his shop is closed, if he fails to give the bribe amount. The bribe amount was reduced to Rs. 1,000/- and the accused officer asked PW-6 to pay the same on 04.02.1999 at 4.00 p.m. and threatened of dire consequences on failure to pay the said bribe amount. Since the complainant/PW-6 was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he lodged complaint Ex.P4 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police-ACB. The said complaint was registered at 11.30 a.m. on 04.02.1999 and trap was arranged on the same day.
3. Before adverting to the facts of the present case it is necessary to mention that two crimes were registered and trap laid at the same time simultaneously. The present crime being No. 2/ACB-CR/99 was registered for demand of Rs. 1000/- from PW-6 and the other Crime No. 3/ACB-CR/99 was also registered for demand of bribe of Rs. 1,500/- from one Mr. Sirajuddin (examined as PW-5 in the present case) to run his business smoothly, who is the Proprietor of Sri Raghavendra Marketing Services. The complainants in both the cases i.e. Sri N. Sayanna in Cr. No. 2/ACB-CR/99 and Mr. Sirajuddin in Cr. No. 3/ACB-CR-99 went inside the Police Out Post one after the other and handed over the bribe amount to the appellant. Two separate pre trap proceedings and post-trap proceedings were drafted by the ACB in the two crimes and two charge-sheets were filed. In both the cases the appellant was found guilty.
4. Coming back to the present case facts, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW-8) summoned two independent witnesses PW-4 and PW-7 to act as mediators to the trap. The pre-trap mediators’ report was drafted under Ex.P2 in the presence of the trap party which included the trap laying officer-PW-8 and Inspector-PW-9 who assisted PW-8.
5. The trap party, after concluding the pre-trap proceedings under Ex.P2 at 3.20 p.m. left to the police Out Post of the Industrial Exhibition, which is at a walkable distance from the ACB office. PW-6 was instructed to go to the Out Post where the accused officer would be available and to handover the bribe amount in the event of his demand. Accordingly, after handing over of bribe by both the complainants in both the cases, the trap party entered into the Out Post. Both the complainants were asked to wait outside the outpost. The DSP conducted sodium carbonate solution test and when the accused officer rinsed his fingers in the solution, the solution turned into pink colour. On questioning, the accused officer removed three wads of currency notes of Rs. 100/- from his pocket. Two of the wads were the trap amounts of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 1500/-. The wearing uniform of the accused officer was also subjected to sodium carbonate test, which yielded positive result. The resultant solutions and phenolphthalein powder was sealed in accordance with the procedure.
6. PW-5, PW-6 and the appellant were examined during the post trap proceedings. One white paper sheet marked as Ex.P7 was p
SupremeToday
Mere recovery of amount from accused officer will not suffice to draw a presumption under Section 20 of Act of 1988 to shift burden on to accused officer.
Point of Law : Hon’ble Supreme Court held that though there was any irregularity in a proceeding, such irregularity should have been resulted in causing prejudice to accused.
The prosecution must prove all the circumstances and events linking one another by producing evidence to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
Point of Law : Mere recovery from AO2 would not entail prosecution to seek drawl of presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act and shift burden on to appellant.
Proof of demand is essential for establishing guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Point of Law : When amount was recovered from the table drawer and once demand is not proved, which is sine qua non proof, an offence under Section 7 of the Act is not proved, the prosecution fails.
Proof of demand is essential for establishing guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery without proof of demand cannot lead to conviction.
Point of law: Mere recovery of the said money from the accused officer will not entail the prosecution to claim presumption in their favour.
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when demand of illegal gratification was not proved, the offence under Section 7 of the Act is not established.
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
