Summary
A Sub-Registrar was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding Rs. 500 to return a registered sale deed and accepting it in a trap. The complainant turned hostile, denied any demand and was not confronted with his complaint, and the shadow witness said only that the accused asked whether the money had been brought. The Supreme Court acquitted him: proof of demand of gratification and its acceptance is a sine qua non for Section 7, a demand for money is not by itself a demand for gratification, the Section 20 presumption arises only after both are proved, and there was no circumstantial evidence of demand. The charge, which alleged a demand on the date of registration rather than the dates actually alleged, was defective but not fatal under Section 464 CrPC as no prejudice was shown.
Issues
- Whether the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are established where the complainant turns hostile and the shadow witness proves no specific demand for gratification.
- Whether an omission to frame a proper charge regarding the dates of demand and acceptance vitiates the conviction.
Provisions considered
- Section 7 (as it stood before 26 July 2018) and Section 20, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Demand of gratification and its acceptance must both be proved beyond reasonable doubt; the demand must be for gratification and not merely for money; only on such proof can the presumption under Section 20 that it was a motive or reward be invoked. (¶¶ 9, 11, 12)
- Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt means cannot be proved unless both demand and acceptance are established. (¶ 12)
- Section 464, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Omission or error in framing a charge is not fatal unless a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned; the accused's cross-examination showed he understood the case on the actual dates of demand, so no prejudice resulted. (¶¶ 15, 16)
Held
- The complainant did not support the prosecution and the prosecutor failed to confront him with his complaint and prove it through the officer who recorded it; the shadow witness said only that the accused asked whether the amount had been brought, which is not proof of a demand for gratification; with no circumstantial evidence of demand either, the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) were not established, following the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12)
- The charge, which referred to a demand on 12 July 2004 at registration rather than the alleged demands of 6 and 13 August 2004 and acceptance on 13 August 2004, was casually framed and per se defective, but under Section 464 CrPC the defect was not fatal as the accused was not prejudiced in his defence; trial courts must be meticulous in framing charges and public prosecutors must apply for proper charges. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16)
Result
Appeal allowed; judgments of the Special Court and High Court quashed and set aside; appellant acquitted of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; bail bonds cancelled.