TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 90 - SUPREME COURT ] has reiterated that the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act can be invoked only on proof of facts in issue, namely, the demand of gratification by the accused and the acceptance thereof. To attract Section 7 of the PC Act, the demand for gratification has to be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. The word used in Section 7, as it existed before 26th July 2018, is 'gratification'. There has to be a demand for gratification. It is not a simple demand for money, but it has to be a demand for gratification. If the factum of demand of gratification and acceptance thereof is proved, then the presumption under Section 20 can be invoked, and the Court can presume that the demand must be as a m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act'). The appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ . High Court, by the impugned judgment, has confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant. 2. The appellant was holding the post of Sub Registrar at Kannivadi, Dindigul District, Tamil Nadu. The complainant M. Sundaramoorthy (PW 2), had purchased land measuring 16.05 cents. Accordingly, on 12th July 2004, sale deed was presented before the appellant who was the Sub Registrar in the concerned office. The complainant and his vendors were present. According to the case made out by the complainant in his complaint, apart from getting the sale deed typed on a stamp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the bribe. 4. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses. PW 1 N.Dhanam Jeyan was examined to prove the sanction order. As stated earlier, PW 2 M. Sundaramoorthy is the complainant and PW 3 Michael is the shadow witness. No other witness is relevant for proving the alleged demand made by the appellant. The complainant (PW 2) did not support the prosecution and was declared as hostile. The appellant examined two defence witnesses, S. Kathiresan and Kalaiselvi to bring on the record audit report of the office in which the appellant was working and a circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, which required the Sub Registrar to visit a land subject matter of sale deed for ascertaining its valuation. SUBMISSIONS 5. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'CrPC'), no defect or omission in the framing of charge is fatal to the prosecution case unless any prejudice caused due to the said omission or failure of justice is established by the accused. He submitted that, in this case, prejudice has not been shown. 8. He relied on this Court's decisions in the cases of Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar [(2011) 9 SCC 272] and Union of India v. ExGNR Ajeet Singh [(2013) 4 SCC 186]. The learned counsel lastly relied upon a decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [2022 SCC online SC 1724] for submitting that a demand for gratification can be established even on the basis of circumstantial evidence. FINDING ON PROOF OF DEMAN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e PW 2 whether he had brought the amount. PW 3 did not say that the appellant made a specific demand of gratification in his presence to PW 2. To attract Section 7 of the PC Act, the demand for gratification has to be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. The word used in Section 7, as it existed before 26th July 2018, is 'gratification'. There has to be a demand for gratification. It is not a simple demand for money, but it has to be a demand for gratification. If the factum of demand of gratification and acceptance thereof is proved, then the presumption under Section 20 can be invoked, and the Court can presume that the demand must be as a motive or reward for doing any official act. This presumption can be rebutte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harge is never fatal unless, in the opinion of the Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. In this case, from the perusal of the cross examination of PW 3 and other prosecution witnesses made by the Advocate for the appellant, it is apparent that the appellant had clearly understood the prosecution case about the first alleged demand made on 6th August 2004 and the subsequent alleged demand and acceptance on 13th August 2004. There is no doubt that this is a case of omission to frame a proper charge, and whatever charge has been framed is, per se defective. However, by reason of the said omission or defect, the accused was not prejudiced insofar as his right to defend is concerned. Therefore, in this case, the omiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
