Summary
The Court affirmed a public servant’s corruption convictions on proof of demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe money. Variations about the precise location, prior instalment and wash procedure did not undermine the core evidence and contemporaneous records. The statutory presumption remained unrebutted. The sanctioning authority had considered relevant material, and investigation by inspectors rather than the asserted requisite rank did not vitiate conviction without prejudice. Surrender to serve the remaining sentence was directed.
Issues
- Whether testimonial discrepancies undermined proof of bribe demand and acceptance.
- Whether defects alleged in sanction and investigation required reversal.
Provisions considered
- Section 20, as applied to the offence, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Proved demand and payment activated the presumption for Section 7; rebuttal required a probable explanation, which was absent. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
Held
- The witnesses’ accounts and contemporaneous records established the demand, payment and recovery. The identified variations were immaterial in context and after the passage of years. The polythene bag containing the money was washed; absence of hand or pocket wash did not undermine the proved events. (¶¶ 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
- The Section 20 presumption was rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities, but no reasonable explanation for the proved bribe receipt rebutted it here. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
- The sanction order and the authority’s evidence, read as a whole, showed consideration of the investigating officer’s report and oral and documentary material. A hypertechnical reading of isolated cross-examination answers did not invalidate the sanction. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
- Investigation by inspectors was at most an irregularity on the objection raised. No prejudice was alleged or argued, and such an investigative defect did not vitiate the completed trial absent miscarriage of justice. (¶¶ 19, 20)
Result
Appeal dismissed; convictions under Sections 7 and 13 and imposed sentences upheld. Appellant directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence; failing surrender, trial court to take coercive steps. Pending applications disposed of.