0

Appeal by Village Officer convicted for accepting bribe dismissed by the Kerala High Court

Blog ,

Case Title: M/S.Shreyas Marketing V. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council

Bench : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kauser Edappagath

Date : 16/06/2023 

Criminal Appeal No. 1692 of 2013

Facts:

This case involves an appeal filed by the appellant/accused against the judgement of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam. The appellant was convicted and sentenced under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution’s case is that the appellant, while working as a Village Officer in 2006, accepted a bribe of ₹650/- from the complainant for providing a location map.

Analysis:

The appellant’s counsel argued that the prosecution failed to prove the demand for illegal gratification and that the evidence of acceptance was not convincing. The defence claimed that the appellant was framed by the complainant, who put the marked currency notes in the appellant’s pocket. The prosecution relied on the testimonies of the complainant (PW1), an independent witness (PW2), and the investigating officer (PW9) to establish the guilt of the appellant.

Judgement:

The court noted that the appellant admitted to receiving the possession certificate and issuing the location map to the complainant. The prosecution’s evidence, including the marked currency notes recovered from the appellant, supported the allegation of demand and acceptance of the bribe. The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was reliable and sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the court below. The appellant was sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000/- under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹15,000/- under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Conclusion:

The court found the appellant guilty of accepting a bribe as a public servant and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court. The testimonies of the complainant and other witnesses, along with the recovery of the marked currency notes, were considered strong evidence against the appellant. The court’s decision reflects the importance of combating corruption and holding public servants accountable for their actions.

click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

WRITTEN BY- ANVITHA RAO

0

The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by the official is absolutely mandatory for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Blog , ,

State Of Gujarat vs Ambalal Kalabhai Parmar

Bench: Honourable Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak

JUDGMENT DATED: 12/04/2023

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1009 of 2006

Facts

In the instant case, the respondents(police officials) were charged under section 7 of the prevention of corruption act but acquitted by the trial court. Thereafter, an appeal was filed in the Gujarat High Court against the decision. As per section 7, a public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.

The Assistance Director of Anti-Corruption Bureau (“ACB” for short) had received a tip that the Police Officers of the Baroda Rural Traffic received illegal gratification amount from the drivers of the passenger vehicles. Therefore the ACB arranged a sting operation to entrap them for which a driver was roped in for assistance in the operation.

The ACB officials gave Rs. 500 to the driver(5 currency notes of Rs. 100 each) and put anthracene powder on it and told the driver to give those specific notes when he found any Police Officers demanding the money.

When the car approached the place, the police officials stopped the driver and demanded bribe. The driver acted as per instructions and paid a bribe of Rs. 200 from the specific currency notes. The police officials were caught red handed which lead to the ACB arresting them.

The accused persons refuted the charge and pleaded not guilty before the trial court. After going through oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the arguments advances by both the sides, the Trial Court passed an order of acquittal. It is this judgement that the appelants have appealed against in the Gujarat High Court.

The counsel for the appellants submitted that despite witnesses testifying against the police officials, the trial court overlooked the testimony and thus the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is erroneous and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the respondents accused be convicted for the alleged offence of illegal gratification. 

The advocate for the respondents submitted that the basic ingredients of the offence i.e. demand and acceptance was not established beyond the reasonable doubt, as there was no demand at all raised by the respondent accused and therefore, the judge of the trial court had rightly considered and appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution, while passing the impugned judgment.

Judgement

The Court, after considering the facts found the main witness of the prosecution had disowned from his version and not supported the case of the prosecution, with regard to the first ingredients of the demand nor had he supported the contents of the F.I.R..

The Court held that the Trial Court had not committed any error of fact and law in appreciating the evidence on record and in acquitting the accused persons from the charges levelled against them. Even on re-appreciation of the evidence, it clearly transpired that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court was sustainable and the present appeal was liable to be dismissed. In view of the evidence on record, it clearly found that the Trial Court had minutely examined the evidence and has properly appreciated the evidence on record and also not committed any error of fact and law in acquitting the accused for the charges levelled against them.

Hence, the judgement of the trial court was affirmed by the Gujarat High Court and the appeal stood dismissed.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AMIT ARAVIND

click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”