Summary
An income-tax officer challenged his conviction for demanding and accepting a bribe. The Court found that the alleged demands lacked reliable corroboration, the recordings and transcript were doubtful, and recovery from a pad on the visitor’s side of the desk did not establish knowing acceptance. The statutory presumption could not supply the missing foundational proof. The convictions were set aside and the officer was honourably acquitted.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution proved demand and knowing acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the recordings, transcript and recovery justified the conviction and statutory presumption.
Provisions considered
- Section 7, as applicable to the alleged offence, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Demand and knowing, voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification required proof beyond reasonable doubt; recovery alone did not establish the offence. (¶ 17-20)
- Section 20, as applicable to the alleged offence, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988The presumption could not arise without proof of its foundational facts; the prosecution could not establish those facts merely on a preponderance of probabilities. (¶ 20)
Held
- The earlier alleged demands rested on the complainant’s account without examination of the persons said to have been present. In the later telephone conversation, the complainant’s offer of money did not establish a demand or acknowledgment by the accused. (¶¶ 5-10, 14)
- The recordings were inaudible or unreliable, the transcript’s preparation and chronology were doubtful, and the person who arranged the recorder was not examined. These defects prevented safe reliance on the recorded material as corroboration. (¶ 10-14)
- The complainant entered the room alone and the recorder was not switched on during the alleged transaction. The shadow witnesses consequently supplied no independent support for the alleged demand and acceptance inside the room. (¶¶ 7, 15-16)
- Recovery from a pad on the visitor’s side of the table, rather than from the accused’s person or drawer, did not prove knowing receipt. The hand-wash and other chemical-test evidence did not sufficiently overcome the doubts arising from the circumstances of recovery. (¶ 17-19)
- The prosecution had to prove the foundational demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt before invoking the presumption. Concurrent findings based on conjectures and an erroneous evidentiary approach required correction. (¶ 20-21)
Result
Appeal allowed. The judgments of conviction were set aside and the appellant was honourably acquitted of the charges.