In S.B.Criminal Appeal No.669/2000-RAJ HC- For offence to be made out under Prevention of Corruption Act, demand and recovery of illegal gratification has to be proven against accused: Rajasthan HC reaffirms Top Court’s view
Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati [09-09-2022]

 

Read Order: Manohar Lal Vs. State Of Raj

Tulip Kanth

Jodhpur, September 12, 2022:  While confirming the conviction of an accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has mentioned the settled position of law that any allegation sans a demand for any kind of illegal gratification or a recovery of the same would result in a failure of the prosecution to prove its case, beyond all reasonable doubt.

The Bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati asserted, “The accused-appellant had a motive to demand illegal gratification of Rs. 100/- from the complainant, owing to the fact that the complainant had sought a copy of a jamabandi of a certain plot of land.”

The facts of this case were such that the complainant had lodged a written report stating that he had sought a copy (nakal) of a particular land record (jamabandi), for which he approached the Halka Patwari, being the present appellant, to which it was alleged that the present appellant demanded a bribe of Rs 100. On such notice, trap proceedings were carried out and the appellant was apprehended by the concerned officials finding that the said tainted currency(which was used for such trap) had been recovered from the appellant’s house.

Subsequently, he was charged for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and upon trial, the Court below, found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to undergo 1 year imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 1000 in default of payment of which he was to further undergo 3 months imprisonment.

The Bench was of the opinion that the accused-appellant when apprehended on the spot, during the trap proceedings, by the concerned officials, did not have any explanation or justification and in his statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he stated that he was being falsely implicated as he refused to assist the complainant in filing a report against one Chandrabhan. 

The accused-appellant was silent, when asked about the illegal gratification at the first instance and offered no explanation for the same, at the time for the source of the money. Noting that such explanation so offered by the accused, was offered at a belated stage which could not be corroborated by him through any evidence, the Bench stated that no evidence was placed on the record before the Court below to that effect, to substantiate any such claim.

Referring to the judgments of the Top Court in State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Ram Singh, B. Noha Vs. State of Kerala and Ors., State of A.P. v. Kommaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy, Guruviah & Ors. Vs. The State , T. Shankar Prasad v. State of A.P.,  Ayyasami Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, the Bench reiterated, “For offences under the Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act of 1988, it is fundamental that a Demand and Recovery of the same is proven against the accused.”

The Bench took note of the fact that it was also proved by the witnesses that the amount was kept in the pocket of the accused-appellant by a motbir witness, after which they washed their hands.The Bench was also of the view that the factum of recovery had been sufficiently proven against the accused, as the tainted currency notes of Rs.100,  in denominations of two notes of Rs 50 each, were recovered from the residence of the accused-appellant, kept under the eyeglasses of the appellant on the table. Upon testing, it was found that he had in fact come into contact with the said currency as his hands turned a pinkish hue and the same solution was sent for testing. The same stood corroborated by the  F.S.L. report, the Bench concluded.

Thus, dismissing the appeal, the Bench directed the accused to be taken into custody and sent to the concerned Jail to undergo the remaining period of his sentence.