Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the acquittal of the Respondent, R. Jeevaratnam, by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Respondent, functioning as the Secretary of Visakhapatnam Port Trust, was accused of demanding a bribe from the complainant, Mr. G. Subrahmanyam, who represented M/s Ramesh Chandra & Company, the lowest bidder for a tender. The prosecution alleged that on 23rd December 1991, the Respondent demanded Rs. 1,00,000 as a bribe to clear complications in the tender process, which was later reduced to an advance of Rs. 10,000. The complainant reported the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which set up a trap leading to the Respondent's arrest with marked currency. The trial court convicted the Respondent, but the High Court acquitted him, concluding that the demand was improbable and that the file had already been cleared. The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence, including testimonies from the complainant and an independent witness, and found that the demand and acceptance of bribe were established. The court noted that the presumption of guilt under Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act applied, and the High Court's reasoning was flawed. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, convicting the Respondent under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act and sentencing him to one year of rigorous imprisonment.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Demand for Bribe - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - The court held that the evidence presented by the prosecution established a clear demand and acceptance of bribe, thus reversing the High Court's acquittal. The court emphasized that the presumption under Section 20(1) arises once it is proved that gratification was accepted, and the evidence of witnesses was credible and unshaken (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in acquitting the Respondent based on insufficient evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, convicting the Respondent under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment.
Law Points
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- presumption of guilt
- demand for bribe
- evidence evaluation
