LexMUKUT BIHARI & ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 6 S.C.R. 710 MUKUT BIHARI & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 870 of 2012) MAY 25, 2012 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: c ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) rlw. s. 13(2) - Prosecution under rlw s. 1208 /PC - Demand and acceptance of bribe - Trap - Seizure of tainted money - Conviction by trial court and sentence of 2 years RI - Conviction and sentence confirmed by High Court - On appeal, held: Conviction justified - Demand as well 0 as acceptance of bribe adequately proved - The trap was proved by the depositions of prosecution witnesses including independent witnesses - Sentence reduced to 1 year in view of the fact that the accused lost their services; that the case was two .decades old; that the accused were suffering from E serious ailments and that the accused had already served six months imprisonment - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 1208 - Sentence/Sentencing. ss. 7, 13 and 20 - Demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Act - Mere F receipt of amount is not sufficient for fasten the guilt, in absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification - The burden rests on the. accused to displace the statutory presumption raised u/s. 20 through direct or circumstantial evidence that G the money was accepted other than as a motive or reward as referred to in s. 7 of the Act - The court is required to consider the explanation of the accused, on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt - Evidence Presumption. H 710 MUKUT BIHARI & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 711 Criminal Trial - Bribery case - Need for corroboration of A complainant's version by another witness - Held: A shadow witness is desirable in a trap parly, but its mere absence would not vitiate the whole trap proceedings - Evidence. Appellants-accused were prosecuted u/ss. 7 and 8 13(1)(d) r/w s. 13(2) ands. 1208 IPC. The prosecution case was that PW-1 filed a complaint against the accused- appellant No. 1 that he demanded Rs. 100/- as bribe for issuing discharge ticket for his (complainant's) father, as · he was discharged from the hospital in which the C appellants-accused were the employees. A trap was arranged, whereby the complainant met appellant No. 1 and had conversation with him, and thereafter the complainant handed over the tainted money to appellant No. 2 at the instance of appellant No. 1. The trap party arrested both the appellants immediately. Trial court D convicted the appellants and sentenced them to 2 years RI. High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence the present appeal. In appeal to this Court appellants contended that for E constituting an offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution has to prove the demand of illegal gratification; that recovery of tainted money or mere acceptance thereof is not sufficient to fasten the criminal liability; that the trap should be supported by an independent eye-witness; that interested witness should F be corroborated; that the conversation between the complainant and the accused should have been heard by the Panch witness; and that if two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused should prevail. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Prevention of G H 712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A Corruption Act, 1988. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused, when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as bribe. Mere B receipt of amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten the guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification, but the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised u/s. 20 of the c Act, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the Act. While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the D court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.