1. Public servant convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding and accepting illegal gratification from a business operator. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 567
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi – Appellant
Versus
The State Of A.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2845 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 9091 of 2022)
Decided On : 10-07-2024Q
Important Points
The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Subject
Criminal Law - Corruption
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.164, S.313
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT : S.13(1)(d), S.13(1)(d)(i), S.13(1)(d)(ii), S.13(2), S.7
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT : S.13(1)(d), S.13(1)(d)(i), S.13(1)(d)(ii), S.13(2), S.7
Headnote
(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - Appeal against conviction for bribery - Appellant, a Forest Section Officer, was accused of demanding and accepting bribe from a saw-mill owner - Trial Court convicted appellant; High Court affirmed conviction of appellant but acquitted co-accused - Prosecution alleged demand of Rs.5,000/- as monthly bribe, supported by witness testimonies and trap proceedings - Court found prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting lack of independent witnesses and contradictions in testimonies. (Paras 1, 3, 53, 56)
(B) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe as a fact in issue, either through direct or circumstantial evidence - Mere acceptance of money without proof of demand does not constitute an offence under the Act. (Paras 26, 88.1, 88.2)
Facts of the case:
The appellant and co-accused were accused of demanding bribes from the complainant under threat of legal action regarding illegal teakwood possession. A trap was set, leading to the appellant's arrest with the bribe money.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies, and the evidence did not convincingly establish the appellant's guilt.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of proving demand and acceptance of bribe as a sine qua non for conviction under the Act, which the prosecution failed to do.
Result: Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted.
(B) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe as a fact in issue, either through direct or circumstantial evidence - Mere acceptance of money without proof of demand does not constitute an offence under the Act. (Paras 26, 88.1, 88.2)
Facts of the case:
The appellant and co-accused were accused of demanding bribes from the complainant under threat of legal action regarding illegal teakwood possession. A trap was set, leading to the appellant's arrest with the bribe money.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies, and the evidence did not convincingly establish the appellant's guilt.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of proving demand and acceptance of bribe as a sine qua non for conviction under the Act, which the prosecution failed to do.
Result: Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. D.S.Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Hitesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Rijul, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Munjal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR
For Petitioner(s) Mr. D.S.Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Hitesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Rijul, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Munjal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Appellant challenges conviction citing lack of proof of demand and planted evidence; State contends demand and acceptance were proven through witness testimony and recovery. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
3. Court found the prosecution case unreliable due to unverified demand, interested shadow witnesses, contradictory call records, and the possibility of planted evidence in the recovered bag. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 34 , 35 , 38 , 41 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 )
4. Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, provable by direct or circumstantial evidence. (Para 27 , 28 )
5. Conviction quashed and set aside; appellant acquitted of all charges. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 )
6. Can the demand for illegal gratification be proved by circumstantial evidence?
Yes, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can be established through either direct evidence, such as oral or documentary evidence, or circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct evidence. (Para 27 , 28 )
7. What is the essential requirement to establish guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
The prosecution must first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This proof is a sine qua non to establish the guilt of the accused public servant. (Para 27 , 28 )
8. What is the difference between a presumption of fact and a presumption of law under the Prevention of Corruption Act?
A presumption of fact is discretionary and raised by the court only when foundational facts are proved. A presumption of law under Section 20 is mandatory once the facts in issue are proved. (Para 27 )
9. How does the use of interested witnesses and lack of independent verification affect the validity of a bribery trap?
Failure to verify the demand independently, the use of interested shadow witnesses, and contradictions between witness testimony and call records create grave doubt, rendering the prosecution case unreliable and insufficient for conviction. (Para 31 , 41 , 44 , 51 , 55 )
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave filed on behalf of the appellant lays a challenge to the judgment dated 2nd August, 2022 passed by the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.1036 of 2008, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed and the judgement dated 5th August, 2008 passed by the learned Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad(hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’) was affirmed. By the said judgment, the appellant herein i.e., Accused Officer No.1(hereinafter being referred to as ‘AO1’) and Accused Officer No.2(hereinafter being referred to as ‘AO2’) were convicted and sentenced as below:-
| i) | Offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(hereinafter being referred to as ‘PC Act’): | Rigorous Imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each (in default, simple imprisonment for three months) |
| ii) | Offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of PC Act: | Rigorous Imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each (in default, simple imprisonment for three months) |
| Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. | ||
3. In appeal, the High Court overturned the conviction of AO2 and affirmed the conviction of the appellant(AO1) herein.
4. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that the appellant(AO1) being the Forest Section Officer and co-accused( AO2-N.Hanumanthu)(since acquitted) being the Forest Guard were both part of the Flying Squad of the Forest Department. On 6th January, 2003, the appellant(AO1) and AO2 had gone to a saw-mill at Vanasthalipuram, purportedly operated by the complainant Mukka Ramesh(hereinafter being referred to as ‘PW-1’), which was taken on lease in the name of PW-1’s wife from one Sri E. Ramachary. During their visit, the appellant(AO1) and AO2 detected teakwood lying in the saw-mill. It is alleged that both the accused (AO1 and AO2), threatened PW-1 that he would be booked in a case for the illegal and unlicensed possession of teakwood in the saw-mill. It is further alleged that on the plea of PW-1, the appellant (AO1) booked a case against one M. Ashok, a worker in the saw-mill and not against PW-1 and thereafter, a compounding fee of Rs.50,000/- was charged, by issuing a receipt(Exhibit P-2) in the name of M. Ashok.
5. It is further alleged that after their visit on 6th January, 2023, the appellant(AO1) and AO2 started demanding mamool (monthly gratification) to the tune of Rs.5,000/- from the PW-1 under a threat that they would book a case against him and in that manner his business would be ruined. Threatening calls were allegedly made to PW-1 on a regular basis. On 21st January, 2003, AO2 called PW-1 and asked him to keep the mamool money ready with further instruction that he would make a call and give directions for delivery of the said bribe. On 22nd January, 2003, the appellant(AO1) called PW-1 and asked him to reach Hotel Quality- Inn Residency, Nampally(hereinafter being referred to as ‘Hotel Quality-Inn’), on early morning of 23rd January, 2003 with the demanded mamool amount of Rs. 5,000/-. Disinclined to pay the bribe, PW-1 lodged a complaint(Exhibit P-1) on 22nd January, 2003 with Shri G. Ramachander, Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB(hereinafter being referred to as ‘DySP’)(PW-10) and a crime report was registered thereupon. The trap was arranged on 23rd January, 2003. The complainant(PW-1), along with his friend Potagunta Ramesh Naidu(hereinafter being referred to as ‘PW-2’) reached the ACB office with the currency notes to the tune of Rs.5,000/- being the bribe amount. Two independent witnesses, namely, Kathi Srinivas Rao(PW-3) and Md. Mahmood Ali were summoned to act as mediators(panchas). At 9:45 am, the trap party conducted the pre-trap proceedings which were recorded in the memorandum(Exhibit P-4). After completing the pre-trap proceedings, the trap party, under the
