Case Note & Summary
The appellant, P. Somaraju, was an Assistant Commissioner of Labour in Hyderabad. The complainant, S. Venkat Reddy (PW-1), a licensed labour contractor, applied for renewal of contract labour licenses for his two establishments in June 1997. The appellant allegedly demanded a bribe of ₹9,000 for renewing the licenses, with a part payment of ₹3,000 made on 25.09.1997. The complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) on 26.09.1997, and a trap was laid. The ACB team recovered ₹3,000 from the appellant's table drawer. The trial court acquitted the appellant, finding the prosecution evidence unreliable, particularly the trap witness (PW-2) who was not independent and whose testimony lacked corroboration. The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sentencing him to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000 on each count. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the trap witness was not independent, the complainant's evidence was inconsistent, and the trial court's acquittal was based on a plausible view. The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing that the High Court should not have reversed the acquittal without finding perversity.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to establish guilt. The court held that the trap witness (PW-2) was not independent and his testimony lacked corroboration, and the complainant's evidence was inconsistent. The trial court's acquittal was based on a plausible view and should not have been reversed. (Paras 1-22) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal Against Acquittal - Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The High Court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's view is perverse or unreasonable. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal as the trial court's findings were plausible and based on evidence. (Paras 1-22) C) Evidence Act - Trap Witness - Credibility - Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The testimony of a trap witness must be scrutinized with care and caution, especially when the witness is not independent. The court held that PW-2, being a panch witness and not an independent member of the public, his evidence required corroboration, which was lacking. (Paras 1-22)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's acquittal and convicting the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment of the High Court dated 08.07.2011 is set aside. The trial court's order of acquittal dated 28.11.2003 is restored. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds, if any, stand discharged.
Law Points
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Trap witness must be independent and reliable
- Mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to prove corruption
- Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 require proof of demand and acceptance
- Acquittal by trial court should not be lightly reversed unless perverse
