The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka opined that the offence u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”) relating to public servants taking bribe requires a demand of illegal gratification and the acceptance thereof. The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act.
Facts
The appellant was working as a Commercial Tax Officer. PW1 (complainant) was working at the relevant time as a supervisor in Farmers’ Service Co-operative Society (‘the said Society’). The returns of the said Society for the year 1996-97 remained pending for assessment. The appellant issued a notice calling upon the said Society to produce cash book, general ledger, and purchase and sales statements for that year. On the instructions of the Managing Director of the said Society, PW1 attended the office of the appellant along with the concerned record. After PW1 showed the documents to the appellant, she called PW4 (Ahmed Moinuddin, ACTO) and directed him to verify the records. When PW1 met the appellant, she demanded a bribe of Rs.3,000/- for issuing an assessment order. Though he showed unwillingness to pay the amount, for consecutive three days, the appellant reiterated the demand. Appellant informed PW1 that unless the bribe as demanded is paid, she will not issue final assessment order. Later she scaled down her demand to Rs.2,000/-.
Procedural History
PW1, along with the Managing Director of the said Society filed a written complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB (Anti-Corruption Bureau). A trap was laid. PW1 collected the general ledger and cash book from the attender, and after coming out of the office, he gave a signal to the trap party. Deputy Superintendent of Police found a wad of currency notes. The numbers on the currency notes tallied with the serial numbers of currency notes described in pre-trap proceedings. After that, the seizure was carried out, and necessary formalities were completed. The Special Court found that the demand of bribe and acceptance of bribe was proved by the prosecution. The High Court affirmed the said finding.
Contentions Made
Appellant: The demand for a bribe by the appellant was not proved, and the evidence of PW1 to that effect is an improvement. The alleged recovery of currency notes was not proved. PW1 deliberately kept the currency notes in the diary lying on her table when she went to the washroom before leaving her office. The notice issued by the appellant recorded that the net turnover of the said Society was nil in the year 1996-97. Therefore, the Society was not liable to pay any tax. Both the Courts have committed an error by convicting the appellant.
Respondent: There is no reason for PW1 to make any false allegation or falsely implicate the appellant. Though communication may have been served on the said Society recording that the Society is not liable to pay any amount, the appellant did not issue the final assessment order, which was issued on the day of the trap. Under Article 136, no interference is called for.
Observations of the Court
The Bench, while setting aside the impugned judgment, observed that:
“The offence under Section 7 of the PC Act relating to public servants taking bribe requires a demand of illegal gratification and the acceptance thereof. The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act.”
“Admittedly, the said Society was served with a notice informing the said Society that an exemption has been granted from payment of commercial tax to the said Society. Therefore, the said Society was not liable to pay any tax for the year 1996-97. The issue of the final assessment order was only a procedural formality. Therefore, the prosecution’s case about the demand of bribe by the appellant appears to be highly doubtful. Hence, we conclude that the demand made by the appellant has not been conclusively proved… Thus, this is a case where the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant was not proved by the prosecution. Thus, the demand which is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 was not established.”
Judgment
The conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable u/s 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act was set aside and the appellant was acquitted of the charges framed against her.
Case Name: K. Shanthamma vs The State of Telangana
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 261 OF 2022
Bench: Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Abhay S. Oka
Decided on: 21 st February 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
