Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) -Bribe giving - Registration and Investigation by ASI/SHO in part and later part by Dy. S.P. - not fatal to the prosecution - Giving Bribe to the complainant to do a favour in getting supply orders of Double Deck Beds to Hostels - Trial court acquitted the accused - High court convicted the accused - Apex court held that It is evident that PW-7 Prem Chand who was posted as ASI/IO in the Bharmour Police Station requested the SHO at Chamba to depute a gazette officer to investigate the matter. Even if the part of investigation had been carried out by PW-7, it cannot be said to be illegal. Nothing has been said from the side of the defence that serious prejudice was caused to the accused by reason of the investigation carried out. The High Court rightly pointed out that Bharmour being a tribal area, there is a single line administration and lot of power is vested with the Resident Commissioner since the heads of various departments or competent authorities are not available in Bharmour, and at that time the ADM-complainant was also the Resident Commissioner, Bharmour.we are fully in agreement that the prosecution has proved charges made against the appellant. The provisions of law considered by the High Court ought to have been followed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court decided the matter as if the offence has been committed by the appellant under the provisions of penal code. The Trial Court has not considered the gravity of the offence as contemplated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. =
Single Judge of the High Court setting aside the judgment and order
of acquittal of the Trial Court convicted the appellant-accused guilty of
the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) and sentenced him to undergo six months
imprisonment.=
on 10.12.2002 at 11 AM the
accused-appellant attempted to give a bribe of Rs.10,000/- to the
complainant – the then Additional District Magistrate, Bharmour for
inducing him, a public servant, to exercise his influence to give accused
supply orders for the supply of double-decker beds by corrupt or illegal
means.
Thereafter, complainant called police officials and lodged the
complaint. List of currency notes allegedly given by the accused were
prepared and the police officials recorded the statements of other
witnesses.
The accused was charged with having committed the aforesaid
offences, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. =
Trail Court
According to the Special
Judge Chamba, the case had been initially investigated by the then ASI Prem
Chand- PW7 and the matter was not investigated by an authorized officer and
there had been miscarriage of justice especially when the statement of the
complainant was recorded by more than one investigating officer including
PW-9 Dr. D.K. Chaudhary, the then Dy. S.P.,Chamba.
The other ground which
weighed with the Trial Court was that there was no occasion for the accused
to offer the bribe for getting the supply of double-decker bed as no
quotation had been invited by PW-8 and there was no correspondence in this
behalf.
Therefore, there was no motive to give the bribe. The Trial Court
also came to the conclusion that the defence version that the ADM
(complainant) was annoyed with the accused was a plausible and reliable
version.
Lastly, the Trial Court held that the prosecution has failed to
prove as to what conversation actually transpired between the accused and
the complainant.
High court
On analyzing the entire evidence, the High Court recorded a
conclusive finding about the guilt of the appellant/accused.
It is evident
that PW-7 Prem Chand who was posted as ASI/IO in the Bharmour Police
Station requested the SHO at Chamba to depute a gazette officer to
investigate the matter.
Even if the part of investigation had been carried
out by PW-7, it cannot be said to be illegal.
Nothing has been said from
the side of the defence that serious prejudice was caused to the accused by
reason of the investigation carried out.
The High Court rightly pointed
out that Bharmour being a tribal area, there is a single line
administration and lot of power is vested with the Resident Commissioner
since the heads of various departments or competent authorities are not
available in Bharmour, and at that time the ADM-complainant was also the
Resident Commissioner, Bharmour.
Apex court held that
While taking note of the finding recorded by the High Court, we are
fully in agreement that the prosecution has proved charges made against the
appellant. The provisions of law considered by the High Court ought to
have been followed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court decided the matter
as if the offence has been committed by the appellant under the provisions
of penal code. The Trial Court has not considered the gravity of the
offence as contemplated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
13. In the facts and circumstances of the case and seriousness of the
offence, we fully agree with the view taken by the High Court. The
impugned judgment, therefore, needs no interference. Hence this appeal has
no merit and the same is dismissed.
‘REPORTABLE’
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.(s) 1564 OF 2014
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6386 of 2012)
Narinder Singh ………Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ……..Respondent
J U D G M E N T
M.Y. EQBAL, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated
13.6.2012 and order dated 9.7.2012 pronounced by the High Court of Himachal
Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.169 of 2008 preferred by the State, whereby
learned Single Judge of the High Court setting aside the judgment and order
of acquittal of the Trial Court convicted the appellant-accused guilty of
the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) and sentenced him to undergo six months
imprisonment.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 10.12.2002 at 11 AM the
accused-appellant attempted to give a bribe of Rs.10,000/- to the
complainant – the then Additional District Magistrate, Bharmour for
inducing him, a public servant, to exercise his influence to give accused
supply orders for the supply of double-decker beds by corrupt or illegal
means. Thereafter, complainant called police officials and lodged the
complaint. List of currency notes allegedly given by the accused were
prepared and the police officials recorded the statements of other
witnesses. The accused was charged with having committed the aforesaid
offences, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Complainant, who was in-charge of the administration of Bharmour area
and sanctioning authority, appeared as PW-8 and stated that while he was
sitting in his office accused entered in his office and talked with regard
to the complaints of the quality of the furniture already supplied by him.
Thereafter, accused offered to supply double decker beds for the Government
Senior Secondary School, Holi. Upon which, complainant explained that
there must be a rate contract of those articles and these articles should
be of good quality. In the meantime, a senior assistant-PW2 came inside
his office and had a discussion with the complainant with regard to
purchase of some door mats and left office room. Thereafter, after using
complainant’s office bathroom with permission, the accused did not sit on
the chair but pulled out the drawer of the table of the complainant and put
some currency notes in the drawer, which were immediately picked up by the
complainant raising objection on it. On this the accused replied that this
was his right (hak). The complainant then reprimanded him and informing
the SHO Bharmour telephonically asked him to come to his office.
5. The complainant also called his Statistical Assistant-PW1 and handed
over the notes to him to prepare list of notes. In the meantime some other
officials came into the office of the complainant. Upon reaching of SHO
Bharmour-PW7 within 15 minutes, the complainant made and handed over a
written complaint along with 20 currency notes of the denomination of
Rs.500/- each, duly signed and sealed in a parcel. According to the
complainant he is not sure why the accused offered him Rs.10,000/-.
Probably, it was with a view to procure further supply order. The cross-
examination of this witness is to the effect that the accused had earlier
supplied desks and benches for which payment had been made to the accused.
The complainant has admitted that double-decker beds were required for the
Govt. Girls Hostel at Holi and he could straight way call the tenders from
the parties concerned but in this case he had still not invited tenders.
He, however, stated that he had issued oral directions to the Principal of
the hostel to be in touch with the contractors for supply of double decker
beds.
6. On the other side, according to the defence, the complainant used to
give supply orders to the manufacturers of furniture not belonging to
Chamba district and in this connection complaint was made to the Deputy
Commissioner, Chamba, and as such, a false case has been lodged by the
complainant against the accused, who is cashier and spokesperson of Chamba
Steel Furniture Manufacturing Association. The defence also led evidence
by examining DW-1 Statistical Assistant, who stated that although
complainant gave sanctions for purchase of various articles to various
departments in Bharmour area but the record of such sanctions is not
available with him as no such copies of sanction orders are retained by his
office. DW-2, owner of a steel factory in Chamba, stated during
examination that after transfer of complainant from Bharmour their units
are getting supply orders.
7. Considering the respective contentions of both the parties and
scrutinizing the records of the case, the Trial Court acquitted the accused
of the charge by giving him the benefit of doubt. According to the Special
Judge Chamba, the case had been initially investigated by the then ASI Prem
Chand- PW7 and the matter was not investigated by an authorized officer and
there had been miscarriage of justice especially when the statement of the
complainant was recorded by more than one investigating officer including
PW-9 Dr. D.K. Chaudhary, the then Dy. S.P.,Chamba. The other ground which
weighed with the Trial Court was that there was no occasion for the accused
to offer the bribe for getting the supply of double-decker bed as no
quotation had been invited by PW-8 and there was no correspondence in this
behalf. Therefore, there was no motive to give the bribe. The Trial Court
also came to the conclusion that the defence version that the ADM
(complainant) was annoyed with the accused was a plausible and reliable
version. Lastly, the Trial Court held that the prosecution has failed to
prove as to what conversation actually transpired between the accused and
the complainant.
8. Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, the State preferred
appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contending that
Trial Court did not take into consideration the provisions of the
Prevention of Corruption Act especially Section 20(2) and if it is proved
that some money was offered then a presumption had to be raised that it was
by way of illegal gratification.
9. After hearing learned Additional Advocate General for the State and
learned senior counsel appearing for the accused and considering case law
and provisions of the Act, learned Single Judge of the High Court opined
that the judgment delivered by the Trial Court is totally perverse and has
been passed without appreciating the evidence or the legal provisions.
Setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court, the High Court convicted the
accused for an offence punishable under Section 12 of the Act and imposed
upon him minimum sentence of six months. Hence, the present appeal by
special leave by the accused.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused assailed the
judgment passed in appeal on the ground, inter alia, that the High Court
has not correctly appreciated and interpreted the provisions of Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988. According to the learned counsel the
investigation was done by the police officer who was not an authorized
officer in terms of Section 17 of the Act and thereby the entire
investigation is vitiated in law. The High Court also erroneously drawn
presumption under Section 20 of the said Act when the prosecution miserably
failed to prove the demand or offer of any gratification. Learned counsel
further submitted that the presumption as contemplated under Section 20(2)
of the Act can be made applicable only when the public servant accepted the
illegal gratification. Learned counsel submitted that all witnesses
examined by the prosecution are subordinates of the complainant and no
independent witness was examined to prove the charges. It was further
contended that charge was framed by the Trial Court for the admitted bribe
to the complainant for awarding the supply order of double decker beds, but
as a matter of fact no such supply order was processed anywhere. Lastly, it
was contended that no implicit reliance on the testimony of the complainant
can be placed unless corroborated by independent witnesses.
11. The impugned judgment reveals that the High Court discussed the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses as also the evidence of the defence
witnesses. On analyzing the entire evidence, the High Court recorded a
conclusive finding about the guilt of the appellant/accused. It is evident
that PW-7 Prem Chand who was posted as ASI/IO in the Bharmour Police
Station requested the SHO at Chamba to depute a gazette officer to
investigate the matter. Even if the part of investigation had been carried
out by PW-7, it cannot be said to be illegal. Nothing has been said from
the side of the defence that serious prejudice was caused to the accused by
reason of the investigation carried out. The High Court rightly pointed
out that Bharmour being a tribal area, there is a single line
administration and lot of power is vested with the Resident Commissioner
since the heads of various departments or competent authorities are not
available in Bharmour, and at that time the ADM-complainant was also the
Resident Commissioner, Bharmour.
12. While taking note of the finding recorded by the High Court, we are
fully in agreement that the prosecution has proved charges made against the
appellant. The provisions of law considered by the High Court ought to
have been followed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court decided the matter
as if the offence has been committed by the appellant under the provisions
of penal code. The Trial Court has not considered the gravity of the
offence as contemplated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
13. In the facts and circumstances of the case and seriousness of the
offence, we fully agree with the view taken by the High Court. The
impugned judgment, therefore, needs no interference. Hence this appeal has
no merit and the same is dismissed.
14. The appellant-accused is accordingly directed to surrender within a
period of one month from today to undergo the six months sentence awarded
by the High Court, failing which the Trial Court shall take necessary
steps. The Registry is directed to immediately communicate this order to
the Trial Court.
………………………………J.
(Ranjan Gogoi)
……………………………….J.
(M.Y. Eqbal)
New Delhi
July 25, 2014
Single Judge of the High Court setting aside the judgment and order
of acquittal of the Trial Court convicted the appellant-accused guilty of
the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) and sentenced him to undergo six months
imprisonment.=
on 10.12.2002 at 11 AM the
accused-appellant attempted to give a bribe of Rs.10,000/- to the
complainant – the then Additional District Magistrate, Bharmour for
inducing him, a public servant, to exercise his influence to give accused
supply orders for the supply of double-decker beds by corrupt or illegal
means.
Thereafter, complainant called police officials and lodged the
complaint. List of currency notes allegedly given by the accused were
prepared and the police officials recorded the statements of other
witnesses.
The accused was charged with having committed the aforesaid
offences, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. =
Trail Court
According to the Special
Judge Chamba, the case had been initially investigated by the then ASI Prem
Chand- PW7 and the matter was not investigated by an authorized officer and
there had been miscarriage of justice especially when the statement of the
complainant was recorded by more than one investigating officer including
PW-9 Dr. D.K. Chaudhary, the then Dy. S.P.,Chamba.
The other ground which
weighed with the Trial Court was that there was no occasion for the accused
to offer the bribe for getting the supply of double-decker bed as no
quotation had been invited by PW-8 and there was no correspondence in this
behalf.
Therefore, there was no motive to give the bribe. The Trial Court
also came to the conclusion that the defence version that the ADM
(complainant) was annoyed with the accused was a plausible and reliable
version.
Lastly, the Trial Court held that the prosecution has failed to
prove as to what conversation actually transpired between the accused and
the complainant.
High court
On analyzing the entire evidence, the High Court recorded a
conclusive finding about the guilt of the appellant/accused.
It is evident
that PW-7 Prem Chand who was posted as ASI/IO in the Bharmour Police
Station requested the SHO at Chamba to depute a gazette officer to
investigate the matter.
Even if the part of investigation had been carried
out by PW-7, it cannot be said to be illegal.
Nothing has been said from
the side of the defence that serious prejudice was caused to the accused by
reason of the investigation carried out.
The High Court rightly pointed
out that Bharmour being a tribal area, there is a single line
administration and lot of power is vested with the Resident Commissioner
since the heads of various departments or competent authorities are not
available in Bharmour, and at that time the ADM-complainant was also the
Resident Commissioner, Bharmour.
Apex court held that
While taking note of the finding recorded by the High Court, we are
fully in agreement that the prosecution has proved charges made against the
appellant. The provisions of law considered by the High Court ought to
have been followed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court decided the matter
as if the offence has been committed by the appellant under the provisions
of penal code. The Trial Court has not considered the gravity of the
offence as contemplated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
13. In the facts and circumstances of the case and seriousness of the
offence, we fully agree with the view taken by the High Court. The
impugned judgment, therefore, needs no interference. Hence this appeal has
no merit and the same is dismissed.
2014 July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41791
RANJAN GOGOI, M.Y. EQBAL‘REPORTABLE’
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.(s) 1564 OF 2014
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6386 of 2012)
Narinder Singh ………Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ……..Respondent
J U D G M E N T
M.Y. EQBAL, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated
13.6.2012 and order dated 9.7.2012 pronounced by the High Court of Himachal
Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.169 of 2008 preferred by the State, whereby
learned Single Judge of the High Court setting aside the judgment and order
of acquittal of the Trial Court convicted the appellant-accused guilty of
the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) and sentenced him to undergo six months
imprisonment.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 10.12.2002 at 11 AM the
accused-appellant attempted to give a bribe of Rs.10,000/- to the
complainant – the then Additional District Magistrate, Bharmour for
inducing him, a public servant, to exercise his influence to give accused
supply orders for the supply of double-decker beds by corrupt or illegal
means. Thereafter, complainant called police officials and lodged the
complaint. List of currency notes allegedly given by the accused were
prepared and the police officials recorded the statements of other
witnesses. The accused was charged with having committed the aforesaid
offences, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Complainant, who was in-charge of the administration of Bharmour area
and sanctioning authority, appeared as PW-8 and stated that while he was
sitting in his office accused entered in his office and talked with regard
to the complaints of the quality of the furniture already supplied by him.
Thereafter, accused offered to supply double decker beds for the Government
Senior Secondary School, Holi. Upon which, complainant explained that
there must be a rate contract of those articles and these articles should
be of good quality. In the meantime, a senior assistant-PW2 came inside
his office and had a discussion with the complainant with regard to
purchase of some door mats and left office room. Thereafter, after using
complainant’s office bathroom with permission, the accused did not sit on
the chair but pulled out the drawer of the table of the complainant and put
some currency notes in the drawer, which were immediately picked up by the
complainant raising objection on it. On this the accused replied that this
was his right (hak). The complainant then reprimanded him and informing
the SHO Bharmour telephonically asked him to come to his office.
5. The complainant also called his Statistical Assistant-PW1 and handed
over the notes to him to prepare list of notes. In the meantime some other
officials came into the office of the complainant. Upon reaching of SHO
Bharmour-PW7 within 15 minutes, the complainant made and handed over a
written complaint along with 20 currency notes of the denomination of
Rs.500/- each, duly signed and sealed in a parcel. According to the
complainant he is not sure why the accused offered him Rs.10,000/-.
Probably, it was with a view to procure further supply order. The cross-
examination of this witness is to the effect that the accused had earlier
supplied desks and benches for which payment had been made to the accused.
The complainant has admitted that double-decker beds were required for the
Govt. Girls Hostel at Holi and he could straight way call the tenders from
the parties concerned but in this case he had still not invited tenders.
He, however, stated that he had issued oral directions to the Principal of
the hostel to be in touch with the contractors for supply of double decker
beds.
6. On the other side, according to the defence, the complainant used to
give supply orders to the manufacturers of furniture not belonging to
Chamba district and in this connection complaint was made to the Deputy
Commissioner, Chamba, and as such, a false case has been lodged by the
complainant against the accused, who is cashier and spokesperson of Chamba
Steel Furniture Manufacturing Association. The defence also led evidence
by examining DW-1 Statistical Assistant, who stated that although
complainant gave sanctions for purchase of various articles to various
departments in Bharmour area but the record of such sanctions is not
available with him as no such copies of sanction orders are retained by his
office. DW-2, owner of a steel factory in Chamba, stated during
examination that after transfer of complainant from Bharmour their units
are getting supply orders.
7. Considering the respective contentions of both the parties and
scrutinizing the records of the case, the Trial Court acquitted the accused
of the charge by giving him the benefit of doubt. According to the Special
Judge Chamba, the case had been initially investigated by the then ASI Prem
Chand- PW7 and the matter was not investigated by an authorized officer and
there had been miscarriage of justice especially when the statement of the
complainant was recorded by more than one investigating officer including
PW-9 Dr. D.K. Chaudhary, the then Dy. S.P.,Chamba. The other ground which
weighed with the Trial Court was that there was no occasion for the accused
to offer the bribe for getting the supply of double-decker bed as no
quotation had been invited by PW-8 and there was no correspondence in this
behalf. Therefore, there was no motive to give the bribe. The Trial Court
also came to the conclusion that the defence version that the ADM
(complainant) was annoyed with the accused was a plausible and reliable
version. Lastly, the Trial Court held that the prosecution has failed to
prove as to what conversation actually transpired between the accused and
the complainant.
8. Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, the State preferred
appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contending that
Trial Court did not take into consideration the provisions of the
Prevention of Corruption Act especially Section 20(2) and if it is proved
that some money was offered then a presumption had to be raised that it was
by way of illegal gratification.
9. After hearing learned Additional Advocate General for the State and
learned senior counsel appearing for the accused and considering case law
and provisions of the Act, learned Single Judge of the High Court opined
that the judgment delivered by the Trial Court is totally perverse and has
been passed without appreciating the evidence or the legal provisions.
Setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court, the High Court convicted the
accused for an offence punishable under Section 12 of the Act and imposed
upon him minimum sentence of six months. Hence, the present appeal by
special leave by the accused.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused assailed the
judgment passed in appeal on the ground, inter alia, that the High Court
has not correctly appreciated and interpreted the provisions of Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988. According to the learned counsel the
investigation was done by the police officer who was not an authorized
officer in terms of Section 17 of the Act and thereby the entire
investigation is vitiated in law. The High Court also erroneously drawn
presumption under Section 20 of the said Act when the prosecution miserably
failed to prove the demand or offer of any gratification. Learned counsel
further submitted that the presumption as contemplated under Section 20(2)
of the Act can be made applicable only when the public servant accepted the
illegal gratification. Learned counsel submitted that all witnesses
examined by the prosecution are subordinates of the complainant and no
independent witness was examined to prove the charges. It was further
contended that charge was framed by the Trial Court for the admitted bribe
to the complainant for awarding the supply order of double decker beds, but
as a matter of fact no such supply order was processed anywhere. Lastly, it
was contended that no implicit reliance on the testimony of the complainant
can be placed unless corroborated by independent witnesses.
11. The impugned judgment reveals that the High Court discussed the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses as also the evidence of the defence
witnesses. On analyzing the entire evidence, the High Court recorded a
conclusive finding about the guilt of the appellant/accused. It is evident
that PW-7 Prem Chand who was posted as ASI/IO in the Bharmour Police
Station requested the SHO at Chamba to depute a gazette officer to
investigate the matter. Even if the part of investigation had been carried
out by PW-7, it cannot be said to be illegal. Nothing has been said from
the side of the defence that serious prejudice was caused to the accused by
reason of the investigation carried out. The High Court rightly pointed
out that Bharmour being a tribal area, there is a single line
administration and lot of power is vested with the Resident Commissioner
since the heads of various departments or competent authorities are not
available in Bharmour, and at that time the ADM-complainant was also the
Resident Commissioner, Bharmour.
12. While taking note of the finding recorded by the High Court, we are
fully in agreement that the prosecution has proved charges made against the
appellant. The provisions of law considered by the High Court ought to
have been followed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court decided the matter
as if the offence has been committed by the appellant under the provisions
of penal code. The Trial Court has not considered the gravity of the
offence as contemplated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
13. In the facts and circumstances of the case and seriousness of the
offence, we fully agree with the view taken by the High Court. The
impugned judgment, therefore, needs no interference. Hence this appeal has
no merit and the same is dismissed.
14. The appellant-accused is accordingly directed to surrender within a
period of one month from today to undergo the six months sentence awarded
by the High Court, failing which the Trial Court shall take necessary
steps. The Registry is directed to immediately communicate this order to
the Trial Court.
………………………………J.
(Ranjan Gogoi)
……………………………….J.
(M.Y. Eqbal)
New Delhi
July 25, 2014
