Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the concurrent conviction of a passport-office clerk under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complainant had not supported the allegation of demand at trial, Rs. 1,000 of the Rs. 1,200 recovered was the lawful passport fee, and the accused's Section 313 CrPC explanation that he was unaware two extra Rs. 100 notes had been added was plausible and had wrongly been brushed aside; the deceased accused was treated as acquitted.
Issues
- Whether a conviction for demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can be sustained when the complainant does not support the demand at trial and the bulk of the money recovered was a lawful fee.
- Whether the courts below erred in not considering the accused's explanation under Section 313 CrPC that he did not know the amount handed over exceeded the lawful passport fee.
Provisions considered
- Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988The Court accepted that demand may be proved by circumstances even where the complainant turns hostile, but held that an offence requires cogent proof of demand; here demand was unsupported at trial, Rs. 1,000 of the Rs. 1,200 was the lawful passport fee and not bribe money, and there was no reliable evidence that the accused knowingly received the extra Rs. 200. (¶¶ 3, 10, 11, 12)
- Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The accused's statement explaining the incriminating circumstances (that he was approached through an advocate to help with the passport and did not know two Rs. 100 notes were placed between the two Rs. 500 notes) had to be considered seriously before recording conviction; a plausible explanation that accounts for the circumstances may be accepted. (¶¶ 6, 11, 12)
Held
- Demand of illegal gratification can be proved by circumstances even if the complainant does not, in so many words, support the prosecution case at trial. (¶ 10)
- Where the complainant deposed that a CBI employee had misled him into assisting a trap and did not support the demand, and the money handed over included the lawful fee, the courts were required to be circumspect and to consider, in light of the Section 313 CrPC defence, whether the accused knew at the time of acceptance that the amount exceeded the lawful fee; absent evidence that the money was counted by or before the accused, the defence could not be brushed aside. (¶ 11)
- The accused's explanation under Section 313 CrPC must be considered before conviction and may be accepted where it is plausible; since offering only the lawful fee would constitute no offence, and there was neither cogent proof of demand nor reliable evidence of knowing receipt of the extra Rs. 200, the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt. (¶ 12)
Result
Appeal allowed; judgments of the High Court and trial court set aside; the deceased accused to be treated as acquitted of all charges; pending applications disposed of.