Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2015 (1) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 1424 - SC - Indian LawsBribe - demand of illegal gratification - Burden to prove - Offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - whether the concurrent findings on the charge under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, recorded by the High Court against the appellant is legal and valid and whether the judgment and order of conviction and sentence under Section 13(2) of the Act, imposed upon the appellant by the High Court, warrants interference by this Court? HELD THAT:- It has been continuously held by this Court in a catena of cases after interpretation of the provisions of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act that the demand of illegal gratification by the accused is the sine qua non for constituting an offence under the provisions of the Act. Thus, the burden to prove the accusation against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act with regard to the acceptance of illegal gratification from the complainant PW2, lies on the prosecution - In the present case, as has been rightly held by the High Court, there is no demand for the illegal gratification on the part of the appellant under Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, in our view, the question of acceptance of illegal gratification from the complainant under the provision of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act also does not arise. The High Court on re-appreciation of evidence on record has held that the demand alleged to have been made by the appellant from the complainant PW2, was not proved and that part of the conviction and sentence was rightly set aside in the impugned judgment. However, the High Court has erroneously affirmed the conviction for the alleged offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, although as per law, demand by the appellant under Section 7 of the Act, should have been proved to sustain the charge under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. On a careful perusal of the entire evidence on record along with the statement of the prosecution witnesses, we have to hold that the prosecution has failed to satisfy us beyond all reasonable doubt that the charge levelled against the appellant is proved. Since, the charge against the appellant is not proved, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused-appellant by the High Court under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act is set aside - The jail authorities are directed to release the appellant forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in any other case - Appeal allowed.
|