Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of the charged corruption offences. The prosecution case depended on a conspiracy under which the co-accused received money for him, but the conspiracy acquittals and the recipient’s acquittal had become final. Independently, acceptance by or on behalf of the appellant was not proved: recovery was from the co-accused, and demand alone was insufficient on the charges tried. The conviction and sentence were set aside; no surrender was required if already on bail.
Issues
- Whether the corruption convictions survived failure of the particular conspiracy-based prosecution case.
- Whether acceptance of the alleged bribe by or on behalf of the appellant was proved.
Held
- The charges alleged a conspiracy between these two accused to demand and receive the money. The unchallenged acquittals on conspiracy and of the alleged recipient had attained finality, undermining the very basis on which receipt was attributed to the appellant. (¶¶ 8, 9, 11, 12, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27)
- Independently of that ground, the prosecution had to prove demand and acceptance for the charged offences. The appellant did not receive the money directly, and the failed conspiracy case left its receipt by the co-accused unproved as acceptance on the appellant’s behalf. (¶¶ 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)
- Proof of demand alone did not establish the required acceptance in this case. The Court accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence under sections 7 and 13(2) read with former section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33)
- The appeal was allowed. If the appellant was already on bail, he was not required to surrender. (¶¶ 33, 34)
Result
Appeal allowed; corruption convictions and sentence set aside and appellant acquitted of those charges. If already on bail, no surrender required.