Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

V. Gopala Gowda, J
Krishan Chander – Appellant
Versus
State Of Delhi – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2016|SLP (Crl.) No.703 of 2015

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sidharth Luthra
For the Respondents: P.S. Patwalia

Demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non to constitute offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Mere recovery of tainted currency notes from an accused, without substantive proof of a demand for such bribe, is insufficient to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) - Conviction for bribery - Demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non to constitute offences under these sections - Mere recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand is not sufficient to establish the guilt - Burden of proof rests upon the prosecution to prove the demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 15, 28, 34-36)

(B) Evidence of Hostile Witness - A witness turning hostile does not render their entire testimony inadmissible - Portions of the testimony that are credible and corroborated by other evidence can be relied upon, but evidence of demand must be clearly established to sustain a conviction. (Paras 21, 28, 31)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 161 - Use of prior statements - Statements recorded during investigation are not substantive evidence and can only be used for contradiction upon strict compliance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act - Failure to prove contradictions by examining the investigating officer renders such evidence ineffective. (Paras 30-31)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a public servant, was convicted by the trial court for bribery offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution alleged that the appellant demanded and accepted a bribe for performing an official act. The complainant, being the brother of an arrested individual, initially supported the prosecution but later turned hostile during the trial, disputing the demand. The High Court upheld the conviction based on the recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant.

Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish a clear demand for illegal gratification. The complainant's hostile testimony was not properly corroborated by other evidence, and the testimony of the panch witnesses failed to establish the specific demand. The Court held that mere recovery of money without proof of demand is insufficient for conviction.

Issues: Whether the prosecution successfully proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as required for offences under the relevant sections of the Act, and whether a conviction can be sustained based solely on the recovery of currency notes when the primary witness turns hostile.

Ratio Decidendi: The proof of demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for an offence under the Act. In the absence of evidence confirming the demand, the legal presumption of guilt is not triggered, and mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to sustain a conviction.

Result: Appeal allowed. The conviction and sentence are set aside, and the appellant is directed to be released forthwith.

Table of Content
1. factual background involving alleged bribe demand and trap proceedings. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. requirement of proven demand of bribe as sine qua non for conviction. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
3. evidentiary value of hostile witnesses and partial reliability of testimony. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
4. inadequacy of evidence to prove demand of bribe in corruption cases. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
5. acquittal due to failure to prove demand of illegal gratification. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)

J U D G M E N T

Leave granted.

2. This criminal appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 7.11.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. Appeal No. 634 of 2008 wherein the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the court of Special Judge, Delhi (for short the “trial court”) in CC No. 21 of 2005. The trial court convicted the appellant vide its judgment dated 14.7.2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the PC Act”) and vide order dated 15.7.2008 sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. For the offences punishable under Section 13(2) of the PC Act, he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences imposed upon him for the above said offences were to run concurrently.

3. Brief facts of the case are stated hereunder to appreciate the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties:-

4. The prosecution case before the trial court was that on 29.7.2004, an FIR No. 662 of 2004 was registered at Police Station, Nangloi, Delhi under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) against one Krishan Kumar (PW-9), the brother of the complainant-Jai Bhagwan (PW-2). Krishan Kumar was arrested on 29.7.2004 in connection with the alleged offences referred to in the above said FIR.

5. The complainant-Jai Bhagwan (PW-2) had approached Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Ranbir Singh (PW-11), the Investigating Officer of the said case for release of Krishan Kumar on bail. The Investigating Officer is stated to have accepted the bail bond for release of Krishan Kumar and directed the appellant (a constable at the said Police Station) to release him on bail in connection with the alleged offences referred to supra.

6. The appellant alleged to have demanded a bribe of Rs.5000/- from the complainant-Jai Bhagwan for releasing his brother Krishan Kumar on bail. It is alleged that under duress, complainant-Jai Bhagwan (PW-2) paid Rs.4,000/- as bribe to the appellant. Thereafter, Krishan Kumar (PW-9) was released on bail and the appellant asked the complainant-Jai Bhagwan to pay him the balance amount of Rs.1,000/- on 30.7.2004 between 6.00 p.m. and 7.00 p.m. at Ditchau Kalan Bus Stand, Najafgarh.

7. The complainant-Jai Bhagwan (PW-2) approached the office of Anti Corruption Branch on 30.07.2004 and made a written complaint regarding the demand of bribe by the appellant from him. The said written complaint was recorded by Sunder Dev (PW-12) in presence of Anoop Kumar Verma (PW-6).

8. The complainant-Jai Bhagwan took with him two Government Currency notes (for short the “GC notes”) in the denomination of Rs.500/- each and handed over the same to Inspector Sunder Dev (PW-12) who noted down the serial numbers of the said GC notes. Thereafter, phenolphthalein powder was applied to the said GC notes and recorded in the pre-raid proceedings and its effect was demonstrated. The tainted GC notes were given to the complainant-Jai Bhagwan, who kept the same in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

V. Gopala Gowda, JKrishan Chander – AppellantVersusState Of Delhi – RespondentCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2016|SLP (Crl.) No.703 of 2015

Demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non to constitute offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Mere recovery of tainted currency notes from an accused, without substantive proof of a demand for such bribe, is insufficient to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Cases Referred (7)

V. Gopala Gowda, J
Krishan Chander – Appellant
Versus
State Of Delhi – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2016|SLP (Crl.) No.703 of 2015