DASHRATH SINGH CHAUHAN versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: [2018] 12 S.C.R. 914 · Decided: 09-10-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
914
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
DASHRATH SINGH CHAUHAN
v.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
(Criminal Appeal No. 1276  of 2010)
OCTOBER 09, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7 and 13(2) r/w
13(1) (d) – Conviction under – When not proper – Complainant
(PW-1) lodged FIR against the appellant and co-accused, both
employees of Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (DESU)
complaining that appellant demanded bribe – The bribe money was
not accepted by the appellant, who asked complainant to give it to
the co-accused – Trial court acquitted both the accused of the charge
of conspiracy u/s.120-B, IPC however, convicted the appellant for
offences u/ss.7 and 13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act – High
Court affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court – On appeal, held:
When the charge against both the accused in relation to conspiracy
was not proved and both the accused were acquitted from the said
charge which resulted in acquittal of the co-accused from all the
charges under the 1988 Act, a fortiori, the appellant too was entitled
for his clean acquittal from the charges under the PC Act –
Prosecution failed to prove the factum of acceptance of bribe money
by the appellant from the complainant as per the charges framed
against him – In order to attract the rigors of ss.7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
of the 1988 Act, the prosecution was under 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 – Appellant entitled for acquittal from the charges framed
against him under the PC Act too – Impugned judgment set aside –
Conviction and the sentence awarded to the appellant u/ss.7,
13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act by the Courts below set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence,
held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of conspiracy
under Section 120-B IPC against the appellant and the co-accused
 [2018] 12 S.C.R. 914
914
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
915
and accordingly acquitted both of them from the said charge. The
co-accused was acquitted from all the charges framed under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The State neither challenged
the clean acquittal of the co-accused and nor challenged the part
acquittal of the appellant in the High Court by filing any appeal.
This, therefore, attained finality. [Para 23] [920-F-G]
1.2  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 the co-accused 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. 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 was held guilty for the offence under
Section 120-B IPC. [Paras 25, 26] [921-B-D]
1.3 Once the co-accused so also the appellant stood
acquitted in respect of the charge of conspiracy and further the
co-accused was also acquitted from the charges under the PC
Act, the charges against the appellant must also necessarily fall
on the ground. Even assuming that despite the appellant being
acquitted of the charge relating to conspiracy and notwithstanding
the clean acquittal of the the co-accused from all the charges, the
prosecution failed to prove the charge against the appellant under
Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
[Paras 27, 28] [921-E-F]
1.4 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 the appellant”. 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
the co-accused. 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 the co-accused failed, it cannot be held that money
(Rs.4000/-) recovered from the possession of the co-accused was
DASHRATH SINGH CHAUHAN  v. CENTRAL BUREAU
OF INVESTIGATION
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
916
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.