Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to an appeal filed by the State of Karnataka against the acquittal of the respondent, Chandrasha, by the High Court of Karnataka. The respondent, a First Division Assistant in the Sub Treasury Office, Afzalpur, was convicted by the trial court for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 2,000 from the complainant, Subhashchandra S. Alur, to pass a bill for encashment of earned leave surrender. The High Court set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions and evidence, upheld the acquittal. The Court reiterated that for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act, proof of demand is an essential ingredient. Mere recovery of money from the accused is not sufficient to constitute the offence, and the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be raised only if the demand is proved. The Court found that the High Court's view was plausible and not perverse, and therefore, declined to interfere with the acquittal. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) - Proof of Demand - The essential ingredient for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is the demand of illegal gratification. Mere recovery of money from the accused is not sufficient to constitute the offence; the prosecution must prove the demand beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of such proof, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot be raised. (Paras 13-15) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Condition Precedent - The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be raised only if the prosecution proves that the accused accepted or obtained, or agreed to accept or obtain, any gratification. Proof of demand is a condition precedent for raising the presumption. If the demand itself is not proved, the presumption does not arise. (Paras 14-15) C) Criminal Appeal - Appeal against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere with the findings of the High Court unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. If the view taken by the High Court is a plausible one, the Supreme Court will not substitute its own view. (Para 16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the respondent for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's judgment of acquittal.
Law Points
- Proof of demand of illegal gratification is essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- Mere recovery of money from accused is not sufficient to raise presumption under Section 20 of the Act without proof of demand
- Presumption under Section 20 can be raised only when demand is proved
- Acquittal by High Court upheld as findings are plausible and not perverse
