Brief Facts
- The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. High Court, by the impugned judgment, has confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
- The complainant, had purchased land. Accordingly, the sale deed was presented before the appellant who was the Sub-Registrar in the concerned office.
- All the lawful demands of the Appellant were fulfilled by the Complainant and the documents sought by him were duly submitted to him, however, the appellant demanded gratification of Rs.500/ for handing over the registered sale deed. As the complainant was not willing to give gratification, he filed a complaint with the Inspector of Police of the Anti-Corruption Unit.
- Thereafter a trap was laid which was unsuccessful. The Trap was again laid and it was successful, the appellant was caught red-handed while accepting the bribe.
Issues
- Essentials to attract Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- Whether the omission to frame charge and/or error in framing charge is fatal?
- Approach of the Trial Court while framing the Charges.
- Duty of Public Prosecutor to confront the hostile Complainant with the contents of the Complaint originally lodged by him.
Held
- The appeal was allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The order of the High Court was quashed and set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the offences alleged against him.
Proof of Demand
- It is well settled that for establishing the commission of an offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, proof of demand of gratification and acceptance of the gratification is a sine qua non. Moreover, the Constitution Bench in the case of Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi),2022 SCC Online SC 1724 has reiterated that the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act can be invoked only on proof of facts in issue, namely, the demand of gratification by the accused and the acceptance thereof.
- To attract Section 7 of the PC Act, the demand for gratification has to be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. The word used in Section 7, as it existed before 26 th July 2018, is ‘gratification’. There has to be a demand for gratification. It is not a simple demand for money, but it has to be a demand for gratification. If the factum of demand of gratification and acceptance thereof is proved, then the presumption under Section 20 can be invoked, and the Court can presume that the demand must be as a motive or reward for doing any official act. This presumption can be rebutted by the accused.
- There is no circumstantial evidence of demand for gratification in this case. In the circumstances, the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) have not been established. Unless both demand and acceptance are established, offence of obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt means covered by clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 13(1)(d) cannot be proved.
Framing of charge
- Under Section 464 of CrPC, omission to frame a charge or any error in charge is never fatal unless, in the opinion of the Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. In this case, from the perusal of the cross-examination of PW3 and other prosecution witnesses made by the Advocate for the appellant, it is apparent that the appellant had clearly understood the prosecution case about the first alleged demand made on 6th August 2004 and the subsequent alleged demand and acceptance on 13th August 2004. There is no doubt that this is a case of omission to frame a proper charge, and whatever charge has been framed is, per se defective. However, by reason of the said omission or defect, the accused was not prejudiced insofar as his right to defend is concerned. Therefore, in this case, the omission to frame charge and/or error in framing charge is not fatal.
- We find that, in this case, the charge has been framed very casually. The Trial Courts ought to be very meticulous
when it comes to the framing of charges. In a given case, any such error or omission may lead to acquittal and/or a long delay in trial due to an order of remand which can be passed under subsection (2) of Section 464 of CrPC. Apart from the duty of the Trial Court, even the public prosecutor has a duty to be vigilant, and if a proper charge is not framed, it is his duty to apply to the Court to frame an appropriate charge.
Lacuna in Re-examination of the Complainant
- As stated earlier, complainant PW2 has not supported the prosecution. He has not said anything in his examination in chief about the demand made by the appellant. The public prosecutor cross examined PW2. The witness stated that there was no demand of a bribe made by the appellant. According to him, he filed a complaint as the return of the sale deed was delayed. Though PW2 accepted that he had filed the complaint, in the cross examination, he was not confronted with the material portions of the complaint in which he had narrated how the alleged demand was made. The public prosecutor ought to have confronted the witness with his alleged prior statements in the complaint and proved that part of the complaint through the concerned police officer who had reduced the complaint into writing. However, that was not done.
Relevant Para No.
9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16