Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d), Section 120¬B of IPC – Bribe  - Case of the prosecution was that the appellant conspired with one R to accept the sum of Rs.4000/¬ as illegal gratification from the complainant, that  Appellant, told the Complainant to give the said money to R , who accepted the money from him - Trial Court acquitted both the accused of the charge of conspiracy under Section 120¬B IPC - Trial Court acquitted R from all the charges but convicted the appellant under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act - When the charge against both the accused in relation to conspiracy was not held proved and both the accused were acquitted from the said charge which, in turn, resulted in clean acquittal of R from all the charges under the PC Act, a fortiori, the appellant too was entitled for his clean acquittal from the charges under the PC Act - Once R  so also the appellant stood acquitted in respect of the charge of conspiracy and further R, co-accused was also acquitted from the charges under the PC Act, the charges against the appellant must also necessarily fall on the ground. (2018)2 SCeJ 1475 / 9th October, 2018

 

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d), Section 120¬B of IPC – Bribe  - In order to attract the rigors of Sections 7, 13(2) read 13(1)(d) of PC Act, the prosecution was under a legal obligation to prove the twin requirements of “demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused”, the proving of one alone but not the other was not sufficient  - Case of the prosecution was that the appellant conspired with one R to accept the sum of Rs.4000/¬ as illegal gratification from the complainant, that  Appellant, told the Complainant to give the said money to R, who accepted the money from him – It was the case of the prosecution in the charge that the appellant did not accept the bribe money but the money was accepted and recovered from the possession of R–co¬accused -  In such circumstances, there is no evidence to prove that the appellant directly accepted the money from the Complainant -  Since the plea of conspiracy against the appellant and R failed, it cannot be held that money (Rs.4000/¬) recovered from the possession of R was as a fact the bribe money meant for the appellant for holding him guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act -  It is more so when the benefit of such acquittal from the charge of conspiracy was given to R but was not given to the appellant – Acquitted. (2018)2 SCeJ 1475/ 9th October, 2018

 

PLR Supreme Court e@journal

 Annual subscription Rs. 1000/-

5 UPDATES A WEEK  

Full text with Headnotes through

email / WhatsApp

 

FREE with

PUNJAB LAW REPORTER

 Annual subscription Rs. 2400/-punjablawreporter@gmail.com / 9463598502