LexRAJESH GUPTA versus STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 2 S.C.R. [2022] 2 S.C.R. 864 864 RAJESH GUPTA v. STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (Criminal Appeal No.1769 of 2014) MARCH 29, 2022 [VINEET SARAN AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.] Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s.7 – For an offence under s.7, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non to prove the guilt – Mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute an offence under s.7 unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused voluntarily accepted the money, knowing it to be a bribe – The proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand – In the instant case there are no sufficient evidence available which points towards such demand except of the evidence of the complainant whose sole testimony cannot be relied upon without having corroboration with the independent witness as she being interested witness. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s.20 – Presumption – When Applicable – The presumption under s.20 can be drawn only when the demand is proved and the money is voluntarily accepted, knowing the fact that the said money has been delivered by way of bribe – In absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of the currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence – Presumption under s.20 can be drawn only after demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved beyond reasonable doubt – In absence of proving the recovery from the person or the drawer of the table or acceptance of the currency notes by accused with relevant material on record in furtherance to the proved demand, the guilt cannot be proved – In the case at hand, the currency notes were found on the table underneath dak pad towards the visitors side – It is merely alleged that the said currency notes were wrapped in a note-sheet on which the traces of the finger prints of the appellant were found, which is treated as acceptance by the appellant – Merely the note sheet, in which the money was wrapped, on dipping in the Sodium Carbonate solution turned pink, traces of which were found in CFSL report, is not A B C D E F G H 865 sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant, in particular, when the currency notes laced with phenolphthalein powder were found towards the visitors side on the table and not recovered from the person or drawer of his table and the solution in which the hands of appellant were dipped, did not turn pink – In the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence so brought is not cogent and sufficient to prove the acceptance of bribe by the accused/ appellant – The findings as recorded by the trial court and the High Court, drawing presumption under s.20 are completely perverse in law as there is no evidence to prove the demand and the acceptance and therefore the theory of preponderance of probabilities, is not sustainable. Evidence Act, 1872: Tape recorded statement – Evidentiary value of – Discussed. Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh 1985 (Suppl) SCC 611 : [1985] Suppl. SCR 399; Panna Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra (1979) 4 SCC 526; Ayyasami v. State of Tamil Nadu (1992) 1 SCC 304; Meena (Smt) w/o Balwant Hemke v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 5 SCC 21 : [2000] 3 SCR 12; B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55 : [2014] 4 SCR 554; C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI (2009) 3 SCC 779 : [2009] 2 SCR 1021 – relied on. Case Law Reference [1985] Suppl. SCR 399 relied on Para 12 (1979) 4 SCC 526 relied on Para 16 (1992) 1 SCC 304 relied on Para 16 [2000] 3 SCR 12 relied on Para 19 [2014] 4 SCR 554 relied on Para 20 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1769 of 2014. From the Judgment and Order dated 25.03.2014 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. A. No.89 of 2009. RAJESH GUPTA v. STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION A B C D E F G H 866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 2 S.C.R. V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Mehul M. Gupta, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Ms. Samten Doma, Shrirang Varma, Ms. Pragya Bhagel, Advs. for the Appellant. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Mohd. Akhi, Sughosh Subramanyam, Amit Sharma, Raghav Sharma, Ms. Poornima Singh, Manvendra Bhati, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was passed: ORDER 1. This appeal has been filed questioning the validity of the judgment passed on 25.3.2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 2009 by the High Court of Delhi confirming the judgment dated 24.1.2009
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.