Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2015 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 1398 - SUPREME COURTReversal of acquittal recorded under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - illegal gratification - demand of bribe - HELD THAT:- It is agreed that the High Court that the trial court while appreciating the prosecution evidence completely ignored the presumption required to be taken under Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Sub-section (1) of Section 20 provides that where, in any trial of an offence punishable Under Section 7 or Section 11 or Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. In the present case, there was no question of giving benefit of reasonable doubt to the accused. In Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Om Prakash [1971 (12) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT], explaining the expression "reasonable doubt", this Court has observed that It does not mean that the evidence must be so strong as to exclude even a remote possibility that the accused could not have committed the offence. If that were so the law would fail to protect society as in no case can such a possibility be excluded. It will give room for fanciful conjectures or untenable doubts and will result in deflecting the course of justice if not thwarting it altogether. In view of law laid down by this Court, as above, and after considering evidence on record in the light of Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, we hold that the trial court did err in law in giving benefit of reasonable doubt in the present case relating to corruption. Considering the rival submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court convicting and sentencing the Appellant Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.
|