InCRL. A. 259/2007 -DEL HC- Delhi High Court rules prosecution must prove demand of gratification ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ to establish offense under Prevention of Corruption Act; emphasizes the need for ‘Sterling Quality’ & ‘Unimpeachable Evidence’ in corruption cases
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma [06-09-2023]

Read Order: Jai Narayan V. State

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, September 8, 2023: The Delhi High Court has acquitted a meter reader of bribery charges, saying that the prosecution had failed to prove the demand of gratification beyond all reasonable doubt.

In this case, the complainant had accused the appellant, a meter reader, of demanding a bribe of Rs. 300, for providing duplicate water bills. Following an inquiry, an FIR was filed, and the appellant was arrested. The Special Court concluded that the appellant had failed to rebut the statutory presumption against him and subsequently convicted him.

The appellant challenged the judgment of conviction and the sentencing order on the grounds that he never demanded a bribe from the complainant and that he was falsely implicated by the Anti-Corruption Branch.

The single-judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma observed that to establish the commission of an offense punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it was essential to prove both the demand of gratification and the acceptance of gratification. These elements were fundamental and indispensable for such an offense.

The bench further clarified that to establish an offense under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must prove the demand of gratification beyond all reasonable doubt. It emphasized that it was not sufficient to merely prove a simple demand for money; there must be a specific demand for gratification. Additionally, the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act can only be invoked if both the factum of the demand for gratification and its acceptance were proven.

The bench emphasized that the more serious the offense, the greater the burden on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Though, the concept of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ cannot be stretched beyond a point, but at the same time, in cases of corruption, which can tarnish the reputation of a person, it is vital that the offence must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. In such cases, the evidence must be of sterling quality and unimpeachable in nature.

“On the basis of weak evidence or mere presumptions and conjectures a person cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,” said the court.

The bench pointed out that the Trial Court had made a mistake in assessing the evidence accurately. It noted that there was a lack of convincing and reliable evidence regarding the demand of gratification, which was an essential element for establishing an offense under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

In view of the above, the bench decided to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction. Consequently, the appellant's conviction for the offenses punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was set aside and the appellant was acquitted of all the charges that had been brought against him.