Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Smt. K. Chandrika, an Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, was convicted by the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore, for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 2,00,000 from the complainant, Chairman of M/s Vmoksha Technologies Pvt. Ltd., to regularize scrutiny of income tax returns. The complainant alleged that on 26.12.2008, the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 10,00,000 and an initial payment of Rs. 2,00,000 for passing favourable orders, threatening to pass an order for concealment of income of Rs. 3 crores. The complainant filed a written complaint on 1.1.2009, and a trap was laid on 2.1.2009, during which the appellant was allegedly caught red-handed accepting the bribe. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced her to imprisonment and fine. On appeal, the High Court re-appreciated the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The trap witnesses, including the complainant (PW-1), the panch witness (PW-2), and the investigating officer (PW-3), were interested witnesses whose testimony lacked independent corroboration. The court noted that the complainant had a motive to implicate the appellant due to the ongoing scrutiny, and the panch witness was a stock witness. The recovery of money alone was insufficient to prove the offence. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Standard of Proof - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; presumption under Section 20 arises only after such proof. In this case, the trap witnesses were interested and their testimony lacked corroboration, leading to acquittal. (Paras 2-10) B) Evidence Act - Interested Witnesses - Credibility - Testimony of trap witnesses, being police officials or interested parties, requires independent corroboration to form the basis of conviction. The court found the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 unreliable. (Paras 5-8) C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Appeal Against Conviction - Section 374(2) - Appellate court can re-appreciate evidence and set aside conviction if findings are perverse or not supported by evidence. The High Court exercised this power to acquit the appellant. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is rebuttable
- standard of proof for demand and acceptance of bribe
- credibility of trap witnesses
- necessity of independent corroboration
