Advertisement
The apex court said that offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act relating to public servants taking bribe requires a demand of illegal gratification and its acceptance.
The section deals with offence by public servants taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act.
A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka said this while setting aside the judgement of the Telangana High Court which had upheld the conviction of a woman public servant, who was working as a commercial tax officer at Secunderabad, for the alleged offences under the PC Act including under section 7. “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,” the bench said in its 17-page judgement.
Related Articles
Advertisement
The bench said that evidence of the complainant in the case about demand for bribe by the appellant was “not at all reliable”. “Hence, we conclude that the demand made by the appellant has not been conclusively proved,” the bench said, adding that the version of the complainant in his examination-in-chief about the demand made by the appellant from time to time is “an improvement”.
“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,” the apex court said.
While allowing the appeal, the bench said the conviction for the offences punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the PC Act is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against her.
According to the prosecution, the appellant was working as a commercial tax officer at Secunderabad and the complainant was working at the relevant time as a supervisor of a co-operative society.
It was said that the complainant was doing the work of filing returns of commercial tax of the society.
It was alleged that though the assessment of the society for the year 1997-98 was completed, till February 2000, the returns for the year 1996-97 remained pending for assessment. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had issued a notice in February 2000 calling upon the society to produce cash book, general ledger and purchase and sales statements for the year 1996-97. Thereafter, the complainant attended the office of the appellant along with the records and it was alleged that the officer had demanded a bribe of Rs 3,000 for issuing an assessment order. The prosecution had further claimed that the appellant reiterated the demand which was scaled down to Rs 2,000.
In March 2000, the complainant, along with the managing director of the society, approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) at Hyderabad after which a trap was laid.
The prosecution had alleged that when the complainant tendered the tainted currency notes of Rs 2,000 to the accused in her office, instead of taking the amount directly, she took out a diary from her table drawer asked him to keep the currency notes in the diary.
The special court, which had convicted the accused, had found that demand and acceptance of bribe was proved by the prosecution.
Later, the high court had affirmed the order of the special court.