Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. = Once Rajinder Kumar so also the appellant stood acquitted in respect of the charge of conspiracy and further Rajinder Kumar­ co­accused was also acquitted from the charges under the PC Act, the charges against the appellant must also necessarily fall on the ground - in order to prove a case against the appellant, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove the twin requirement of “demand and the acceptance of the bribe amount by 14 the appellant”. As mentioned above, it was the case of the prosecution in the charge that the appellant did not accept the bribe money but the money was accepted and recovered from the possession of Rajinder Kumar–co­accused (A­1). 30) In such circumstances, there is no evidence to prove that the appellant directly accepted the money from the Complainant. Since the plea of conspiracy against the appellant and Rajinder Kumar failed, it cannot be held that money (Rs.4000/­) recovered from the possession of Rajinder Kumar was as a fact the bribe money meant for the appellant for holding him guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. It is more so when the benefit of such acquittal from the charge of conspiracy was given to Rajinder Kumar but was not given to the appellant.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1276  OF 2010
Dashrath Singh Chauhan               ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Central Bureau of Investigation    ….Respondent(s)
               
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   final
judgment and order dated 20.07.2009 passed by
the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal
Appeal   No.447   of   2001   whereby   the   High   Court
dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein
and upheld his conviction and sentence awarded by
1
order   dated   31.05.2001   passed   by   the   Special
Judge, Delhi in C.C. No.53 of 1995 acquitting him
of the charge under Section 120­B of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”)
and convicting him for the charges under Sections
7,   13(2)   read   with   13(1)(d)   of   the   Prevention   of
Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the
PC Act”) and sentenced him to  undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a
fine of Rs.40,000/­ under Sections 7 and 13(2) read
with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act cumulatively, in
default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo
simple imprisonment for six months. 
2) In order to appreciate the issues involved in
this appeal, few facts need mention hereinbelow.
3) In short, the case of the prosecution is that the
appellant was an employee of Delhi Electric Supply
2
Undertaking (DESU). At the relevant time, he was
working on the post of Inspector.
4) On 28.03.1995, the complainant­Arun Kumar
(PW­1) lodged an FIR under Section 7 read with
Section 13(2) of the PC Act against the appellant
and another employee of DESU namely, Rajinder
Kumar complaining inter alia that in January 1995,
he applied for installation of an electric connection
for   his   factory  and   for  that   purpose  he   met   the
appellant in his office where he demanded from him
Rs.4000/­ for doing the abovesaid work and told
him that unless he pays a sum of Rs.4000/­ as
bribe to him, it is not possible to install the electric
connection.
5) On the basis of the said FIR, the CBI through
its   Inspector­   Mr.   Kaul   (PW­6)   formed   a   raiding
party on 29.03.1995 to implicate the appellant and
3
then reached to his office with one shadow witness
Mahinder (PW­2).
6) On reaching the office, the Complainant told
the   appellant   that   he   has   brought   Rs.4000/­   as
demanded by him. The appellant, however, told the
Complainant   to   give   the   said   money   to   Rajinder
Kumar,   who   accepted   the   money   from   him.   No
sooner Rajinder Kumar accepted the money, than
PW­2 and PW­6 entered in the room and caught
Rajinder Kumar with the bribe money.
7) This led to initiation of the prosecution of the
appellant   and   co­accused   Rajinder   Kumar   for
commission   of   the   offences   punishable   under
Sections 7, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act read
with Section 120­B of IPC in the Court of Special
Judge   Delhi.   The   prosecution   examined   their
witnesses to prove the three charges framed against
4
both   the   accused.   The   appellant   also   adduced
defense evidence.
8) By judgment dated 31.05.2001, the Trial Court
(Special Judge) held that the prosecution failed to
prove   the   case   of   any   conspiracy   between   the
appellant (A­1) and co­accused Rajinder Kumar (A2)
  in   relation   to   the   offences   in   question   and,
therefore,   the   charge   of   conspiracy   against   them
under Section 120­B  IPC was held as not made out.
Both the accused were, therefore, acquitted of the
charge of conspiracy under Section 120­B  IPC.
9) The finding on this issue recorded by the Trial
Court in Paras 14 and 16 reads as under:­
“14. In the case before us, there is not
even   slightest   evidence   about   the   existence
of a criminal conspiracy between A­1 and A­2.
Once this had been established, only then we
could  have   read   the   statement   of   both   the
accused, not only against each one of them,
but   against   the   other   of   them   and   also   for
proving the existence of criminal conspiracy
as such.
5
16.There is no such situation before us.
There   are   certain   statements   only.   In   any
case,   once   conspiracy   is   not   established,
even the statement, made by A­1 against A­2
are vice­versa, cannot be read in evidence.”
10) The Trial Court then disbelieved the evidence
of the Investigating Officer­Mr. Kaul (PW­6) on the
ground that he himself was of a doubtful integrity
because the High Court, in one case, had directed
registration   of   a   bribe   case   against   him   and,
therefore, his evidence in this case cannot be relied
on (See Para 17 of the judgment of the Trial Court)
but the Trial Court believed the evidence of shadow
witness   (PW­2   ­   Mahinder   Lal)   for   holding   the
appellant guilty of the offences punishable under
the PC Act.
11)  The Trial Court accordingly acquitted Rajinder
Kumar (A­2) from all the charges but convicted the
appellant(A­1)   for   the   offences   punishable   under
6
Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC
Act.
12) The State, however, accepted the judgment of
the Trial Court and did not file any appeal against
the acquittal of Rajinder Kumar nor even file any
appeal against the acquittal of the appellant from
the offence under Section 120­B IPC.
13) The   appellant   (A­1),   felt   aggrieved   by   his
conviction   and   sentence   under   the   PC   Act,   filed
criminal   appeal   in   the   High   Court   at   Delhi.   By
impugned   order,   the   High   Court   dismissed   the
appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court
which has given rise to filing of the present appeal
by way of special leave by the appellant(A­1) in this
Court.
14) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
15) Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant (A­1) while assailing the legality
7
and   correctness   of   the   impugned   order   mainly
argued two points.
16) In the first place, learned counsel contended
that   the   Trial   Court   as   well   as   the   High   Court
having rightly acquitted both the accused (A­1 and
A­2)   insofar   as   the   offence   of   conspiracy   under
Section   120­B   is   concerned   and   further   having
rightly acquitted Rajinder Kumar (A­2) from all the
charges   under   the   PC   Act   but   erred   in   not
acquitting   the   appellant(A­1)   from   the   offences
under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)
of  the PC Act.
17) It was his submission that once the charge of
conspiracy under Section 120­B IPC was held as
"not proved" against the appellant(A­1) and the coaccused
Rajinder Kumar(A­2) and further its benefit
was rightly extended to Rajinder Kumar (A­2) for his
clean acquittal from the charges under the PC Act,
8
the same benefit should have been extended to the
appellant(A­1) as well.
18) In   the   second   place,   the   learned   counsel
contended that the appellant’s conviction is based
only on the evidence of a shadow witness (PW­2)
whereas the evidence of the Investigation Officer,
Mr.   Kaul   (PW­6)   was   not   believed   due   to   his
doubtful integrity.
19) It   was   his   submission   that   the   basic
requirements in  such  a  case, namely, proving of
"demand   of   bribe   and   its   acceptance   by   the
appellant"   was   not   proved   much   less   beyond
reasonable doubt. It was urged that at best what
the prosecution was able to prove was the “demand"
of bribe made by the appellant to the Complainant
but not “its acceptance” because the evidence, in
clear terms, established coupled with the findings of
the Courts below that the appellant did not accept
9
the money but it was accepted and recovered from
the possession of Rajinder Kumar(A­1).
20) It   was,   therefore,   urged   that   since   the
acceptance of bribe money was not proved qua the
appellant   and   nor   it   was   proved   that   Rajinder
Kumar   accepted   it   for   and   on   behalf   of   the
appellant, the appellant’s conviction under any of
the   provisions   of   the   PC   Act   much   less   under
Sections 7, 13(2) read with   Section 13(1)(d)   was
not legally sustainable and hence it deserves to be
set aside. 
21) In reply, learned counsel for the respondent
(CBI) supported the reasoning and the conclusion
arrived at by the two Courts below and contended
that no case for any interference in the impugned
judgment   is   made   out   and   hence   the   appeal   be
dismissed.
10
22) Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
find force in the submissions of the learned counsel
for the appellant.
23) It is not in dispute that the prosecution had
framed three charges against the appellant and coaccused­Rajinder
Kumar and two out of the three
charges, namely, Charge Nos. 1 and 2 were based
on the conspiracy. It is also not in dispute that the
Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence, held
that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of
conspiracy   under   Section   120­B   IPC   against   the
appellant and Rajinder Kumar (A­1) and accordingly
acquitted both of them from the said charge.  It is
also   not   in   dispute   that   so   far   as   co­accusedRajinder
  Kumar   (A­1)   is   concerned,   he   was
acquitted from all the charges framed under the PC
Act. It is also not in dispute that the State neither
11
challenged the clean acquittal of Rajinder Kumar
and   nor   challenged   the   part   acquittal   of   the
appellant in the High Court by filing any appeal.
This, therefore, attained finality.   
24)   In substance, the charges against both the
accused   were   that   the   appellant   entered   into   a
criminal   conspiracy   with   Rajinder   Kumar   to
demand   and   accept   illegal   bribe   money   of   Rs.
4000/­   from   the   Complainant­Arun   Kumar   as   a
motive or reward for showing him official favour in
the   matter   of   installation   of   electricity   power
connection   and,   in   furtherance   thereof,   the
appellant   on   28.03.1995   as   also   on   29.03.1995
around 11.30 AM to 11.55 AM in the DESU office
demanded   Rs.4000/­   from   the   complainant   and
directed   him   to   pay   the   said   money   to   Rajinder
Kumar­co accused, who accepted the said money on
his behalf.
12
25) In our considered opinion,  when the charge
against both the accused in relation to conspiracy
was not held proved and both the accused were
acquitted   from   the   said   charge   which,   in   turn,
resulted in clean acquittal of Rajinder Kumar from
all   the   charges   under   the   PC  Act,   a  fortiori,   the
appellant too  was entitled for his clean acquittal
from the charges under the PC Act.
26) It is not the case of the prosecution that the
appellant had conspired with another person and
even though the identity of the other person was not
established,   yet   the   appellant   held   guilty   for   the
offence under Section 120­B IPC. On the contrary,
we find that the case of the prosecution was that
the appellant conspired with one Rajinder Kumar to
accept the sum of Rs.4000/­ as illegal gratification
from Arun Kumar­the complainant.
13
27) Once   Rajinder   Kumar   so   also   the   appellant
stood   acquitted   in   respect   of   the   charge   of
conspiracy and further Rajinder Kumar­ co­accused
was also acquitted from the charges under the PC
Act, the charges against the appellant must also
necessarily fall on the ground. (See Para 15 Bhagat
Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, (1972) 2 SCC 466).
28) Even   assuming   that   despite   the   appellant
being acquitted of the charge relating to conspiracy
and notwithstanding the clean acquittal of Rajinder
Kumar from all the charges, the prosecuton failed ot
prove   the   charge   against   the   appellant   under
Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the
PC Act.
29) It is for the reason that in order to prove a case
against   the   appellant,   it   was   necessary   for   the
prosecution   to   prove   the   twin   requirement   of
“demand and the acceptance of the bribe amount by
14
the appellant”.  As mentioned above, it was the case
of the prosecution in the charge that the appellant
did not accept the bribe money but the money was
accepted   and   recovered   from   the   possession   of
Rajinder Kumar–co­accused (A­1). 
30) In such circumstances, there is no evidence to
prove that the appellant directly accepted the money
from the Complainant. Since the plea of conspiracy
against the appellant and Rajinder Kumar failed, it
cannot be held that money (Rs.4000/­) recovered
from the possession of Rajinder Kumar was as a
fact the bribe money meant for the appellant for
holding   him   guilty   for   the   offences   punishable
under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC
Act. It is more so when the benefit of such acquittal
from the charge of conspiracy was given to Rajinder
Kumar but was not given to the appellant.  
15
31) In our view, the prosecution, therefore, failed
to prove the factum of acceptance of bribe money of
Rs.4000/­ by the appellant from the Complainant
on 29.03.1995 as per the charges framed against
him.
32)  Since in order to attract the rigors of Sections
7, 13(2) read 13(1)(d) of PC Act, the prosecution was
under   a   legal   obligation   to   prove   the   twin
requirements of “demand and acceptance of bribe
money by the accused”, the proving of one alone
but not the other was not sufficient.  The appellant
is, therefore, entitled for acquittal from the charges
framed against him under the PC Act too. (See para
8 of M.K. Harshan  vs. State of Kerala,  (1996) 11
SCC 720)
33)     In   view   of   the   foregoing   discussion,   the
appeal   succeeds   and   is   accordingly   allowed.   The
impugned judgment is set aside. The conviction and
16
the   sentence   awarded   to   the   appellant   under
Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the
PC Act by the Courts below are set aside and the
appellant is set free from the said charges.
34) If the appellant is already on bail, it is not
necessary for him to surrender.
     ………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
         
                       
     ...……..................................J.
                    [INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi;
October 09, 2018
17