Court Sets Aside Conviction Under Prevention of Corruption Act Due to Lack of Direct Evidence and Defective Sanction Order

Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification – The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant, a public servant, demanded and accepted illegal gratification. The court held that mere recovery of currency notes is insufficient to establish guilt under Section 7 of the P.C. Act without proof of demand. (Paras 16, 18, 22)

Defective Sanction Order – The sanction order was issued by the Commissioner of Police, who was not the competent authority under the P.C. Act. The competent authority was the Director General of Police. The court held that the trial was vitiated due to the invalid sanction. (Paras 36, 38)

Circumstantial Evidence – The court emphasized that while circumstantial evidence can be used to prove demand and acceptance, each circumstance must be established beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the prosecution failed to meet this standard. (Paras 21, 22)

Hostile Witnesses and Material Omissions – Key witnesses, including the complainant and panch witnesses, turned hostile or provided inconsistent testimonies. The court noted material omissions in the prosecution’s case, which created reasonable doubt. (Paras 12, 27, 28)

Voice Recording Discrepancies – The voice recordings submitted as evidence were found to be unreliable due to gaps, distortions, and the absence of hash values, which raised doubts about their authenticity. (Paras 32, 33)

Acquittal – The court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and acquitted the appellant of all charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act. (Paras 39, 40)

The court allowed the appellant’s appeal, quashed the conviction, and acquitted the appellant of all charges. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt and that the sanction order was invalid.

Major Acts:

1. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C. Act) – Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2)

2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 377(1)

3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65B

Subjects:

Prevention of Corruption Act – Illegal Gratification – Demand and Acceptance – Circumstantial Evidence – Defective Sanction – Hostile Witnesses – Voice Recording Discrepancies – Acquittal

Facts:

1. Nature of the Litigation – The appellant, an Assistant Police Inspector, was convicted by the Special Judge, Greater Mumbai, under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 1 lakh from the complainant.

2. Remedy Sought – The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence, while the State filed an appeal for enhancement of the sentence.

3. Reason for Filing the Case – The complainant alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe to help him in a case involving the illegal transportation of Gutkha (tobacco) and evasion of octroi duty.

4. Previous Decision – The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to 2 years of rigorous imprisonment for each offence, along with fines.

Issues:

1. Whether the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt?

2. Whether the sanction order was valid, given that it was issued by an incompetent authority?

3. Whether the voice recordings and other circumstantial evidence were reliable enough to sustain the conviction?

Submissions/Arguments:

1. Appellant’s Arguments –
   a. The prosecution failed to prove the demand for bribery, as the complainant’s testimony was inconsistent and unreliable.
   b. The sanction order was defective, as it was issued by the Commissioner of Police, who was not the competent authority.
   c. The voice recordings were tampered with, and no hash values were drawn, making them inadmissible.

2. State’s Arguments –
   a. The prosecution established the demand and acceptance of bribery through the complainant’s testimony and voice recordings.
   b. The sanction order was valid, as it was admitted by the defence during cross-examination.

Ratio:

1. Proof of Demand – In cases under the P.C. Act, mere recovery of currency notes is insufficient to establish guilt. The prosecution must prove the demand for illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, either through direct or circumstantial evidence. (Paras 16, 22)

2. Sanction Order – A sanction order issued by an incompetent authority vitiates the trial, and the prosecution must prove the validity of the sanction. (Paras 36, 38)

3. Circumstantial Evidence – When relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish each circumstance beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. (Paras 21, 22)