Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the conviction of two public servants employed in the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.30,000 from the husband of the owner of a bar and restaurant. The prosecution alleged that the accused, who were an Assistant Executive Engineer and an Artisan, demanded the bribe to forbear from levying pro-rata water connection charges on the restaurant. On 19 March 2002, the second accused allegedly accepted the tainted money from the complainant at the restaurant, and shortly thereafter handed it to the first accused in the BWSSB office. A trap was laid by the Lokayukta police. The trial court convicted both accused under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment of two years and a fine of Rs.20,000 for the offence under Section 7, and rigorous imprisonment of two years and six months and a fine of Rs.25,000 for the offence under Section 13(2); sentences were to run concurrently. On appeal, the accused contended that no official favour was possible because no pro-rata charges were due, and that key witnesses including the shadow witness and the bribe-giver had not supported the prosecution case. It was argued that the demand and receipt of the bribe were not proved, and that the trapping of the first accused in his office was unconstitutional under Article 20 of the Constitution. The prosecution maintained that the receipt of the tainted money was not satisfactorily explained by the accused, and relied on the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. The High Court, after hearing arguments, framed three points for consideration: whether the prosecution had established the existence of pro-rata charges as a basis for official favour, whether the demand and receipt of the bribe were proved beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the trial court's conviction was justified. The judgment excerpt provided does not include the court's analysis or final order.
Issue of Consideration
Main questions of law: 1) Whether prosecution established that the complainant was expected to pay pro-rata charges, thereby creating scope for official favour and a demand for bribe; 2) Whether prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded Rs.30,000 as bribe and that receipt was preceded by demand; 3) Whether the trial court was justified in convicting the accused for offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Law Points
- demand and acceptance of illegal gratification
- proof of demand preceding receipt
- presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- official favour
- pro-rata charges
- trap proceedings
- validity of sanction
- Article 20 of the Constitution
- shadow witness
Case Details
2015 LawText (KAR) (11) 21
C G Sundar (for appellant), Venkatesh P Dalwai (for respondent)
R. Srinivasan and Nanjundappa
State by Police Inspector, Lokayuktha Bangalore
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought setting aside of judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 11.06.2015 passed by the Special Court in Special C.C. No. 87/2006.
Filing Reason
Trial court convicted appellants for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.30,000 from the husband of a restaurant owner for not levying pro-rata water connection charges.
Previous Decisions
Special Court convicted appellants on 11.06.2015 for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced them to imprisonment and fine.
Issues
Whether the prosecution established that the complainant was expected to pay pro-rata charges to BWSSB, thereby providing an opportunity for the accused to demand a bribe and do an official favour.
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that both accused demanded Rs.30,000 as bribe and that the receipt of the bribe was preceded by such demand.
Whether the trial court was justified in convicting the accused for the charged offences.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that there was no scope to do any official favour because no pro-rata charges were due; material witnesses including the shadow witness and the bribe-giver did not support the prosecution case; the demand and receipt of bribe were not proved; the trap of the first accused in his office was unconstitutional under Article 20 of the Constitution; and the evidence did not show that receipt of money was preceded by demand.
Respondent argued that inconsistencies in witness testimonies were minor and could not defeat the prosecution case; the accused had not discharged the burden under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act to explain the receipt of tainted money; the witnesses withstood cross-examination; and the conviction was justified on proper appreciation of evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
That you accused no.1 R.Srinivasan was working as Assistant Executive Engineer and you accused no.2 S.Nanjundappa was working as Artisan (Valveman) in No. C-2 Sub-division, BWSSB, High Grounds, Bangalore,, you accused nos.1 and 2 being public servants demanded bribe amount of Rs.30,000/- for not levying pro-rata charges in respect of the bar and restaurant building belonging to CW4 K.P.Poovamma
Prosecution has mainly relied on the following circumstances: i) The Power of the accused to do official favour in the matter of collecting pro-rata charges to be paid to BWSSB. ii) Demand made by the 2nd accused to pay bribe in the matter of paying pro-rata charges of the restaurant; iii) Receipt of the alleged tainted amount of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant in Shakti Bar and Restaurant; iv) Demand and receipt of the tainted amount by the 1st accused in his office;
It is argued that the very trapping of the 1st accused in the office at the instance of the 2nd accused by Lokayukta police is opposed to Article 20 of the Constitution of India.
Procedural History
After investigation, charge sheet filed as Special C.C.133/03. Charges framed on 12.04.2012. Trial conducted, and conviction recorded on 11.06.2015. Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2), 20
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 34
- Constitution of India: Article 20
