Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SURENDER, J.
Shyamala Pramod Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 580 of 2010
Decided On : 31-07-2023
BRIBERY - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - SECTION 7, 13(1)(D) - DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE - RECOVERY OF BRIBE AMOUNT FROM ADJOINING ROOM IN POLYTHENE COVER - DOUBT REGARDING RECOVERY - PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE CASE - CONVICTION SET ASIDE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an Assistant Labour Officer, was convicted for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- from a medical agency owner for issuing labor licenses. The prosecution alleged that the appellant demanded the bribe and kept it in his table drawer, and later prepared seven certificates for the licenses. The appellant was arrested by the ACB trap party after the bribe was paid.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant had left the room after the complainant and the mediator entered his office. The court also noted that the prosecution failed to explain how the bribe amount was placed in a polythene cover in the next room and how the appellant went into the next room to retrieve it.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the recovery of the bribe amount from the adjoining room in a polythene cover was valid and reliable?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that there was no evidence to explain how the bribe amount was placed in a polythene cover in the next room and how the appellant went into the next room to retrieve it. The court also noted that the appellant had taken the defense that the amount was initially planted in his table drawer and thereafter in the adjoining room, and that there was evidence on record regarding the complainant and other shop holders developing grudge against the appellant.
Final Decision: The court set aside the appellant's conviction and sentence.
JUDGMENT :
K. SURENDER, J.
1. The appellant is questioning his conviction vide judgment in C.C. No. 21 of 2005 dated 13.04.2010 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, and being sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short ‘the Act’) and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was working as Assistant Labour Officer, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. The case of PW-1/defacto complainant is that he and other medical agencies in the area did not have labour licences for engaging workers. Accordingly, on 19.06.2003, PW-1 met the appellant and enquired about the licences. Since there was no response, PW-1 again met him on 20.06.2003. When PW-1 enquired about the licences, appellant demanded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- as bribe for issuing licences. The applications were not received by the appellant from PW-1 and others. Again on 21.06.2003, PW-1 met the appellant and also met one person by name Sathish Kumar. On 24.06.2003, PW-1 went to the house of the appellant and the appellant instructed to get an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to his office on 25.06.2003. PW-1 informed his associate members and all of them decided to get the appellant trapped by the ACB.
3. Complaint was filed by PW-1 on 24.06.2003. The DSP asked PW-1 to come on the next day i.e. on 25.06.2003. On 25.06.2003, at 8.30 a.m, the trap party gathered at the office of DSP, ACB, Karimnagar. The independent mediators were introduced to PW-1. Having concluded the pre-trap proceedings Ex.P19, the trap party proceeded to the office of the appellant. PW-1 was asked to enter into the office and pay the bribe amount only on demand by the appellant. PW-2 was asked to accompany PW-1 and observe what transpires in between the appellant and PW-1.
4. Both PWs. 1 and 2 entered into the office and met the appellant. PW-1 handed over Exs.P2 to P11 application forms for issuance of licences. Appellant demanded for Rs. 10,000/- and having received the bribe amount, kept it in the right table draw. Immediately, the appellant started preparing certificates and seven certificates were handed over to PW-1 and was asked to come in the evening hours for the remaining three licences. At that time, PW-2 went out and gave signal to the trap party indicating acceptance of bribe. The trap party immediately entered into the office of the appellant. Test was conducted on the hands of the appellant. The test to the right hand proved positive and test on the left remained negative.
5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police questioned PW-1, PW-2 and the appellant about what transpired in the room after PW-1 entered. Post trap proceedings were drafted under Ex.P23. The applications which were carried by PW-1, i.e. Exs.P2 to P11 and the certificates prepared by the appellant Exs.P12 to P18 were also seized during the post trap proceedings. The investigation was handed over to the Inspector. After concluding the investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act.
6. Learned Special Judge having examined the witnesses found that the appellant was guilty of demanding and accepting bribe of Rs. 10,000/- and accordingly convicted him.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant was falsely implicated in the case. Even according to PWs. 1, 2 and 5, they were aggrieved by the issuance of show-cause notices by the appellant. PW-5 admitted that the appellant issued two show-cause notices to him levying penalty of Rs. 6,222/-. Witness also admitted that fines ranging from Rs. 1037/- to Rs. 1,644/- were levied by the appellant on the shop keepers. PW-5 categorically admitted that the associates conducted a meeting and decided to get the appellant trapped or see to that
AI
The prosecution must prove all the circumstances and events linking one another by producing evidence to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
The necessity of proving demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act was affirmed, with emphasis on the burden of proof resting on the accused.
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.
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.
The prosecution must prove the demand for a bribe and the existence of pending official work to secure a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Proof of demand is essential for establishing guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The court established that mere acceptance of a bribe without direct demand or capacity to influence does not constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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.
A public servant's demand for a bribe must be substantiated by evidence that they had the authority to grant the favor sought by the complainant.
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
