Even If There Is Recovery Of Alleged Illegal Gratification, It Cannot Be The Basis To Convict: Telangana HC Acquits Junior Engineer In Corruption Case
The Telangana High Court allowed the Appeal challenging the conviction and sentence under Sections 7, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
The Telangana High Court acquitted a Junior Engineer in a corruption case while holding that even if there is a recovery of the alleged illegal gratification, it cannot be the basis to convict the Appellant.
The Court allowed the Appeal challenging the conviction and sentence recorded by the Special Court for CBI Cases for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
A Single Bench of Justice K Surender noted, “The allegation whether the appellant had intentionally withheld the bills of Rs.45,347.32 Ps. for the purpose of bribe has to be assessed.”
Advocate MV Hanumantha Rao represented the Appellant, while Special Public Prosecutor Srinivas Kapatia appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
A complaint was lodged alleging that the Appellant had demanded illegal gratification for recommending clearance of pending bills related to civil work executed at the University of Hyderabad. The complainant, along with the supervisor of the construction firm, approached the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), leading to a trap operation conducted on the same day.
The CBI team conducted pre-trap proceedings, during which the bribe money was treated with phenolphthalein powder. The trap was executed at the Appellant’s office, where the supervisor allegedly handed over the bribe, which was later seized from the left-side drawer of the Appellant’s table. A hand wash test of the Appellant’s left hand turned pink, indicating contact with the tainted money.
Following the trap proceedings, the appellant was arrested.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in N.Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) wherein it was held that mere recovery of the amount divorced from the circumstances cannot form basis to convict, when the substantive evidence in the case was not reliable.
Similarly, the Court also relied on the decision in P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of A.P. (2015) where a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that “proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offences punishable under Section 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and in the absence of the same, the charge would fail.” It was also held that mere acceptance and recovery of the illegal gratification would not be sufficient to prove the above charges.
Consequently, the Court held, “The demand of bribe for clearing the bill for Rs.45,347/- is highly improbable. Hence, even if there was recovery in the present case, the same cannot be made basis to convict the appellant in the light of the above two Judgments.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: V.V.V.N.S.S. Prasad v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 417 OF 2014)
