VINOD KUMAR GARG versus STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI)

Citation: [2019] 17 S.C.R. 1134 · Decided: 27-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDU MALHOTRA, SANJIV KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1134
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
VINOD KUMAR GARG
v.
STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL
CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI)
(Criminal Appeal No. 1781 of 2009)
NOVEMBER 27, 2019
[INDU MALHOTRA AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: ss.7 and 13 – Demand
and acceptance of illegal gratification – Prosecution case was that
the appellant-Inspector, DESU demanded bribe money from PW-2
for providing electricity connection to his shed – On PW-2’s
complaint, trap was laid on the fateful day – Currency notes were
subjected to chemical treatement – Raiding party along with PW-
2, PW-3 and PW-5 proceeded to the DESU office – When PW-2
approached appellant, he took him to a garment shop on his
scooter and went inside the shop where he asked PW-2 to give the
money – PW-2 gave currency notes to appellant in a polythene bag
which was put in appellant’s pant pocket as directed by the
appellant – PW-3 (panch witness) present in the immediate vicinity
gave signal to the raiding party – Inspector (PW-5) in the presence
of PW-2 and PW-3 recovered tainted money from the pant pocket
of the appellant – Conviction of appellant by courts below –
Challenged on the ground that there were major contradictions on
material aspect in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses – Held:
Minor discrepancy and inability of prosecution witnesses to
remember the exact details of whether or not the handwash or pant
wash was done would not justify acquittal of the appellant –
Deviations between the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 would not
mean that the demand and payment of bribe, the trap and seizure
of the bribe money was not proved – The contradictions that crept
in the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 on the question of the total
amount demanded were immaterial and inconsequential as it was
proved that the bribe was demanded and taken by the appellant
on fateful day – The variations as highlighted would lose
significance in view of the proven facts on the recovery of bribe
money from the pant pocket of the appellant, on which depositions
of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 were identical and not at variance – The
   [2019] 17 S.C.R. 1134
1134
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1135
money recovered was the currency notes that were treated and noted
in the pre- raid proceedings – The contradictions as pointed out
were insignificant when juxtaposed with the vivid and eloquent
narration of incriminating facts proved and established beyond
doubt – Given the time gap of five to six years, minor contradictions
on some details were bound to occur and are natural – The
witnesses are not required to recollect and narrate the entire version
with photographic memory notwithstanding the hiatus and passage
of time – Picayune variations do not in any way negate and
contradict the main and core incriminatory evidence of the demand
of bribe, reason why the bribe was demanded and the actual taking
of the bribe that was paid, which are the ingredients of the offence
under ss. 7 and 13 of the Act, that have been proved and
established beyond reasonable doubt – Documents prepared
contemporaneously affirmed the primary and ocular evidence –
Therefore, there was no good ground and reason to upset and set
aside the findings recorded by the trial court that were upheld by
the High Court.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s.20 – Presumption as
to acceptance of illegal gratification – In the case at hand, the
condition precedent to drawing a legal presumption that the
accused demanded and was paid the bribe money was proved and
established by the incriminating material on record – Thus, the
presumption under s.20 of the Act was applicable for the offence
committed by the appellant under s.7 of the Act – Appellant was
found in possession of the bribe money and no reasonable
explanation was furnished that may rebut the presumption.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s.17 – Procedural lapse
– Effect on prosecution case – Contention of appellant that
investigation was not conducted by the police officer by the rank
and status of the Deputy Superintendent of Police or equal, but
by Inspector (PW-5) and Inspector (PW-7) – Held: The contention
is rejected for the reason that while this lapse would be an
irregularity and unless the irregularity has resulted in causing
prejudice, the conviction will not be vitiated and bad in law –
Appellant did not allege or even argue that any prejudice was
caused and suffered because the investigation was conducted by
the police officer of the rank of Ins

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