Case Note & Summary
The present appeals arise from an order dated 27.05.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, which allowed the appeals of the accused-respondents and acquitted them of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The State of Uttar Pradesh, aggrieved by the acquittal, preferred the present appeals before the Supreme Court. The factual matrix involves a complaint by Kuldeep Tiwari, a Retainer Consultant, alleging that on 05.01.1995, R.K. Srivastava, Superintendent of Central Excise, along with A.K. Gaba and Alok Gupta, Inspectors of Central Excise, visited M/s Prime Products and M/s Amoli Ceraplast Ltd., seized records without acknowledgment, and later demanded Rs.80,000 as illegal gratification for returning the documents. On 14.01.1995, a CBI trap was laid, and Rs.60,000 was recovered from R.K. Srivastava's bedroom and Rs.20,000 from the jacket pocket of P.K. Srivastava. The trial court convicted the accused, but the High Court reversed the conviction. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting that the complainant (PW-1) and the shadow witness (PW-2) turned hostile and gave contradictory statements. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings were not perverse and were based on a proper appreciation of evidence. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bribery - Demand and Acceptance - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - The prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt as the complainant and shadow witness turned hostile and their testimony was unreliable - Held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot be invoked without proof of demand and acceptance (Paras 1-10). B) Evidence Law - Hostile Witness - Credibility - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 154 - The complainant and shadow witness were declared hostile and their evidence was found to be contradictory and untrustworthy - Held that conviction cannot be based on such unreliable testimony (Paras 5-8). C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Acquittal - Scope - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 378 - The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's order of acquittal as the findings were not perverse and were based on proper appreciation of evidence - Held that the appellate court's interference is limited when the view taken by the High Court is plausible (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused-respondents by reversing the conviction recorded by the trial court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court's order of acquittal, finding no perversity in the High Court's appreciation of evidence.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 arises only when demand and acceptance are proved
- Standard of proof in criminal cases is beyond reasonable doubt
- Appellate court's interference with acquittal is limited unless perverse
