Illegal Gratification Demand Is Gravamen Of Offence Under Prevention Of Corruption Act: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal Of Central Excise Officers
The Supreme Court was considering an appeal challenging the impugned order of the Allahabad High Court.
Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Prasanna B. Varale, Supreme Court
While upholding the acquittal of Central Excise Officers in a corruption case, the Supreme Court has observed that the proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence and in the absence thereof, the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act would not arise.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the impugned order of the Allahabad High Court acquitting the respondents of the charges levelled against them.
The Division Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale stated, “The proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence and in absence thereof, the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act would not arise. Where prosecution evidence is inconsistent and material witnesses turn hostile, benefit of doubt must necessarily endure to the accused.”
Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar represented the Appellant, while Advocate R K Kapoor represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The case dates back to the year 1995, when the Central Excise Officials visited M/s Prime Products in Barabanki and also inspected the adjoining factory. R.K. Srivastava, along with other co-accused persons, had seized all the available records of M/s Amoli Ceraplast Ltd. without giving any acknowledgement. Thereafter, the complainant, a Retainer Consultant, visited the office of R.K. Srivastava and asked him to return all the documents which they had taken away with them from the factory. The accused Office allegedly told the complainant that unless he made the payment of Rs.80,000 as an illegal gratification, the documents would not be returned to him. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant, Kuldeep Tiwari, lodged a First Information Report.
The complainant, along with the shadow witnesses, visited the residence of Srivastava with Rs. 80,000, where the brother of the accused, P.K. Srivastava, was allegedly also sitting. The team of C.B.I. raided the house of the accused, and Rs.60,000 were recovered from the bedroom and Rs. 20,000 was also recovered from the pocket of the jacket of P. K. Srivastava. The accused persons were allegedly caught red-handed. A charge-sheet was filed by the investigating agency CBI, against the accused persons for the offences under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code read with Section 7, Section 13(2),13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C. Act) and Section 114 and 201 IPC, read with Section 7 & 13(2) P.C. Act. The Special Judge convicted the accused persons. The Allahabad High Court allowed all three criminal appeals and acquitted the respondents. It was in such circumstances that the appellant State approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, reiterated that the demand for the bribe money is sine qua non to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. As per the Bench, in the case at hand, the prosecution failed to establish the foundational fact of demand beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Bench held that the High Court rightly noticed that the prosecution evidence regarding the demand itself was doubtful and unreliable, particularly when the complainant and several material witnesses failed to support the prosecution version. “Therefore, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act could not have been invoked against the respondents”, it added. As per the Bench, the complainant, independent witnesses and other material witnesses having not supported the prosecution's case in material particulars, the High Court was justified in extending the benefit of doubt to the respondents.
Dealing with the charge of conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC, the Bench stated that for establishing the charge of conspiracy, the pre-requisite is satisfactory evidence to show that there was a meeting of the minds of the accused to hatch the conspiracy and then to act to give effect to the hatched conspiracy. The Bench noted that, except for alleging the presence of the respondents at certain places during the relevant period, the prosecution failed to produce any substantive evidence indicating prior agreement or concert between the respondents and the principal accused, R.K. Srivastava.
As per the Bench, the failure of the prosecution to produce the alleged tape-recorded conversation assumed greater significance as the same could have conclusively established the persons present at the time of the alleged demand and the exact nature of the conversation.
Thus, holding that the prosecution failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the essential ingredients of demand, acceptance and criminal conspiracy, the Bench dismissed the appeal and held, “Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court acquitting the respondents does not warrant interference.”
Cause Title: State of Uttar Pradesh v. A.K. Gaba (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 568)
Appearance
Appellant: ASG Brijender Chahar, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates Bhuvan Kapoor, Bhuvan Mishra, Abhijeet Pandove, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi
Respondent: Advocates R K Kapoor, Shweta Kapoor, Rajat Kapoor, Aakriti Kapila, AOR Kheyali Singh, AOR Rajeev Kumar Bansal, Advocates Kshitij Singh, Kavita Singh, Shefali Jain, Rajesh Sonthalia, Madan Lal Daga, Parvinder, Vidya Sagar