Allowed

Ramgopal Sahu R. G. Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC19 Sept 2024CRA/1505/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against conviction for corruption, the High Court acquitted the appellant as the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, reversing the trial court's decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment acquitting the appellant was set aside; the appellant was acquitted of all charges and bail retained.

Ramgopal Sahu R. G. Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Corruption | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Reserved on 06.02.2024 Pronounced on 20.09.2024

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 1505 of 2017

¶6

Ramgopal Sahu (R. G. Sahu), S/o Dwarika Prasad Sahu, Aged About 39 Years Development Block Education Officer Pendra, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

---- Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through State Economic Offences Wingand Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur, Branch Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

For the Appellant : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Singh, G. A.

¶12

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶13

CAV JUDGMENT

¶14

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of CrPC being aggrieved by the judgment impugned dated 30.08.2017 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bilaspur (CG) in Special Case No.141/2015 convicting the accused/appellants under Section 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (For short “ PC Act”) and sentencing him to undergo RI for 4 years and 5 years respectively with fine of Rs.10,000/-, on each count plus default stipulation.

¶15

The appellant was charged for an offence punishable under Section 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of PC Act that he being posed as Block Development Officer and Assistant Grade- II being a public servant demanded illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant- Indrabhan Singh Marco (PW-2) allowing him to pass an order with regard to his joining in compliance of

¶16

¶17

his promotion order and received Rs.9,000/- as illegal gratification. Three accused persons put to trial before the learned Special Court, one of accused namely Ramesh Yadav died during the pendency of appeal and one other accused person namely Chandrakumar was acquitted by learned Special Court.

¶18

It is an admitted fact in the case that Indrabhan Singh Marco (PW-2) knows the accused, who is working in the Establishment Branch, Pendra Education Department, BEO office and the complainant was posed as an Assistant Teacher in Bhadi Government Middle School which follows within jurisdiction of Pendra, BEO office. The complainant was promoted to the post of Upper Division Teacher in the year 2009. The trap team caught hold of accused persons and on being interrogated, accused R.G. Sahu, stated his name to be Ram Gopal Sahu BEO, Pendra and accused C. K. Sahu stated his name to be Chandrakumar Singh Clerk. As per seizure memo (Ex.P-23), explanation of complainant Indrabhan Singh Marco (PW-2) is Ex.D-3, photocopy of service book Article 26, letter written by complainant Indrabhan Singh Marco (PW-2) Ex.D-1 & Ex.D-2, personal files, computer file of salary assessment and the list of teachers who took the charge after promotion order (Ex.P-40), were seized. Ex.P-23 contains signatures of Narendra Sharma (PW-16) from C to C part and accused Chandrakumar and punch witnesses have also put their signatures. The accused persons were arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P-28 and P-29.

¶19

Facts leading to the disposal of this appeal in brief are that the complainant- Indrabhan Singh Marco (PW-2) made a written report (Ex.P-2) to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh on 06.02.2009 inter alia stating that he is an assistant teacher of Bhadi Middle School and has been promoted to Upper Division Teacher on 29.01.2009 in the same school, but he has not yet been relieved by the Block Development Officer, Pendra G. R. Sahu and has not even been made to join on

¶20

¶21

the new post and no order to that effect was issued. When he contacted him twothree times in the month of February, G. R. Sahu kept demanding Rs.10,000/-. On 05.02.2009, he again went and asked him to bring ten thousand rupees within a week, thereafter he would pass an order for relieving and joining on new post. He does not want to give bribe and prays for some action. Thereafter a complaint was forwarded to Inspector Narendra Sharma (PW-16). In order to ascertain truthfulness, a tape recorder was given to the complainant and Panchnama P-33 was prepared. A raid was conducted and after due investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

¶22

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded in which he pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case, and claimed trial.

¶23

By the judgment impugned learned Court below has held the accused/appellant guilty and imposed the sentence on him as described above which is under challenge in this appeal.

¶24

Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submits that the conviction of the appellant by the learned trial Court is patently erroneous, contrary to the evidence and is bad in law. He submits that as per case of the prosecution, the complainant Indrabhan Singh Marco (PW-2) made a first written complaint (Ex.P-2) on 06.02.2009, and thereafter a tap recorder was handed over to the complainant by the ACB, Raipur and on 10.02.2009 the second written complaint (Ex.P-3) was filed by the complainant (PW-2) on that day the tape recorder was given by the complainant to the ACB officials, till 10.02.2009 no tap recorder was kept by complainant with him. Thereafter ACB raided the premises of the appellant, however, they did not recover any amount of the alleged bribe money from the possession of the appellant. He submits that

¶25

¶26

admittedly the money was recovered at the instance of deceased/accused Ramesh Yadav and there is nothing on record to suggest that the demand was raised by him. He submits that allegations against the complainant made in complaint was that the complainant was promoted on 29.01.2009 from the post of Assistant Teacher to Upper Division Teacher and for that purposes he has to seek permission from his office for joining on promotional post, but the record reflects that the complainant itself joined had there on 02.02.2009, therefore, there was no occasion for the appellant to make a demand with regard to permission of joining or passing a relieving order. He submits that the appellant vide Ex.D-4 has already submitted a list to the Commissioner intimating that the appellant along with other persons have joined in compliance of their promotional orders. Therefore, there was no motive available to the appellant to seek for any demand or bribe from the complainant. Learned counsel for the appellant further read over to the statement of complainant Indrabhan Singh Marco (PW-2) particularly, Paras 13,14,15,18 & 20 and tried to demonstrate that the statement of the complainant is not credible and in Para 20 he stated that the complaint was made being misunderstood. He submits that the basis of the conviction of the trial Court is a document Ex.P-13 which is an apology letter said to have been given by the complainant to the appellant on the ground that he has made some complaint in the ACB, which is liable to be set aside because the said apology letter (Ex.P-13) was not recovered at the instance of the appellant, therefore, it has no evidentiary value. He further goes on to submit that from the statement of complainant and other witnesses examined by the prosecution, demand, motive, recovery of the alleged bribe has not been proved. Even the hands, clothes or any material from the possession of the appellant did not turn pink in chemical Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate analysis. He further submits that the Panchnama witness namely P. K. Sharma (PW-6) has not supported the case of the prosecution and

¶27

¶28

Inspector Vedram Sinha (PW-5) who is alleged to be present at the time of Panchnama, has admitted to the fact that no colouring was found on the hands of the appellant. He further goes on to submit that the statement of Inspector (ACB) (PW-11) who was the part of the raid team, is also not credible, particularly, looking to the Paras 28 & 29. Inviting attention to the statement of Anil Kumar Pathak (PW-3) as per Para 14, he submits that the recovery of the bribe money was not made from the office of the appellant and only an apology order (Ex.P13) was recovered that too not from the instance of appellant. He further submits that there is no material except the complainant who could justify that any demand was raised and even otherwise the statement of the complainant is also not credible. He submits that once the motive, demand and recovery of alleged bribe money has not been proved, the conviction cannot stand scrutiny of this Court. To fortify his submissions, he placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Satyanarayan Murthy Vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152 , and in the case of B. Jayaraj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2014) 13 SCC 55 and in the case of Dashrath Singh Chauhan Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2019) 17 SCC 509 and a decision of this Court passed in CRA No. 2243 of 1999 dated 28.05.2021.

¶29

Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the finding of conviction recorded by learned tribunal is absolutely justified, based on proper appreciation of evidence and does not require any interference by this Court. He further submits that prosecution has proved that the demand vide Ex.P-1, apology letter forced to be returned by the complainant which has been duly seized and proved, therefore in view of presumption under Section 20 of PC Act, the conviction can be sustained. He submits that though the money has not been recovered at the instance of appellant, it would not be sufficient to hold that he has not demanded

¶30

¶31

the money. The money was recovered at the instance of deceased/accusedRamesh as the appellant has asked the complainant to deposit the money to Ramesh. He also placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Narsinga Rao Vs. State of A.P. reported in (2001) 1 SCC 691.

¶32

To constitute the offence of an illegal gratification, there are three essential ingredients (i) demand, (ii) acceptance and (iii) recovery.

¶33

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Satyanarayan Murthy (Supra) observed as under :-

¶34

“23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) (i)&(ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act.

¶35

26. In reiteration of the golden principle which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases, this Court in Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam (2013)12 SCC 406 had held that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of “may be” true but has to upgrade it in the domain of “must be” true in order to steer clear of any possible surmise or conjecture. It was held, that the Court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if in the facts and circumstances, two views are plausible, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.”

¶36

In another case of B. Jayaraj (Supra) in paragraph 7 and 9 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶37

“7. In so far as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By

¶38

¶39

way of illustration reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma Vs. State of A.P., (2010) 15 SCC 1 and C.M. Girish Babu Vs. C.B.I., (2009) 3 SCC 779.

¶40

9. In so far as the presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent.”

¶41

12. In case of Dashrath Singh Chauhan (Supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

¶42

“29) It is for the reason that in order to prove a case against the appellant, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove the twin requirement of “demand and the acceptance of the bribe amount by the appellant”. As mentioned above, 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 Rajinder Kumar–coaccused (A-1).

¶43

32) Since 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. The appellant is, therefore, entitled for acquittal from the charges framed against him under the PC Act too. (See para 8 of M.K. Harshan vs. State of Kerala, (1996) 11 SCC 720)”

¶44

Recently, in N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 3 SCC 687 , reiterating the judgment of B. Jayaraj case (supra), it was held by the Supreme Court as follows:

¶45

“26. It is equally well settled that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused. Reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, (2009) 3 SCC 779 and in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55. In the aforesaid judgments of this Court while considering the case

¶46

¶47

under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it is reiterated that to prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe. Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence. In the said judgments it is also held that even the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. It is also fairly well settled that initial presumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the trial court.”

¶48

In the light of above view taken by the Supreme Court, I shall examine the facts and statements of witnesses of the present case. It is not in dispute that the complainant Indrabhan (PW-2) knows the appellant. Appellant is posted in the establishment section of Pendra Block Education Office, of Education Department. Complainant Indrabhan (PW-2) was posted as Assistant Teacher at Bhadi Government Middle School which falls under Pendra Block Education Office. Complainant Indrabhan (PW-2) was promoted as Upper Division Teacher in the year 2009.

¶49

Complainant Indrabhan Singh Marco (PW-2) in his Court statement stated that he knows the appellant. He stated that the appellant is working in Block Education Office Pendra. He was posted as Assistant Teacher in Bhadi Government Middle School as Assistant Teacher which falls under the Block Education Office Pendra. In the year 2009 he was promoted as Upper Division Teacher and for joining and relieving purpose he had gone to Block Education Office Pendra. Appellant stated for joining Rs.10,000/- would be needed. He was not inclined to pay Rs.10,000/- to the appellant. Therefore, he made the complaint (Ex-P/2) in the ACB, office Bilaspur. He was given a small tape recorder in the ACB office, Bilaspur and was asked to record the conversation with appellant. He further stated that he went to Block Education Office Pendra with the tape recorder and had a conversation with appellant with regard to bribe. The appellant

¶50

¶51

demanded Rs.9,000/- for joining and asked him to come on 11-12 February.

¶52

Complainant Indrabhan Singh Marko (PW-2) further stated that on 10.02.2009 he again gave the complaint (Ex.P-3) in the ACB Office and upon his written complaint FIR (Ex.P-4) was lodged by Inspector Narendra Sharma (PW16). He submits that CD prepare from the Tape Recorders submitted by the complainant (PW-2) was seized vide (Ex.P-5). He further stated that he was called in the ACB Office, Bilaspur on 11.02.2009 and reached thereat 7 AM where DSP Pathak, Inspector Narendra Sharma, Panch witness Tandon and another members of staff Vedram and Heeradhar were present. He further stated that 9 notes of 1000 denomination was given to ACB. He further stated that the trap party at about 12-1 PM reached the Block Education Office, Pendra and he went inside and other people were sitting. Appellant asked him to wait for half an hour. When he was talking to the appellant, he asked him to write an apology letter stating that complainant his raising complaint in the ACB Office. Thereafter he wrote an apology letter which was kept by the appellant in his drawer of the table. Thereafter, appellant asked the complainant Indrabhan Singh Marco (PW-2) to give the money to co-accused C.K. Singh (acquitted accused). When he went to accused C.K. Singh, he asked the complainant to give the money to peon Ramesh Yadav (deceased accused). Thereafter, the money was kept by Ramesh Yadav (deceased accused) kept in a carry bag and went away. He further stated that when this was informed to ACB Official, Ramesh Yadav (deceased accused) was called, who informed that the money is kept in the almirah. On washing the hand of Ramesh Yadav pink solution was found and upon washing the hands of appellant and C.K.Singh (acquitted accused) the solution was colorless. Thereafter, Panchnama was prepared and he was inquired. In the cross-examination in paragraph 13 & 14 he admits the fact that the relieving and joining documents with regard to his promotion are not part of the record. In paragraph 15 he admits

¶53

¶54

that he himself relieved himself in village Bhadi and joined himself. In paragraph 16 this witness admits that prior to 7.02.2009, he joined on the post of Upper Division Teacher after having been relieved from the post of Assistant Teacher.

¶55

In paragraph 18 he admits that Ramesh Yadav (deceased accused) demanded the money and he has paid the money to Ramesh Yadav. The important documents to which reliance has been placed by the learned trial Court convicting the appellant is Ex. P-13 i.e. apology letter written by complainant Indrabhan Singh Marco (PW-2). In the evidence before the Court he stated that the apology letter (Ex.P-13) was written by complainant on the saying of the appellant which was kept by the appellant in his drawer. In further cross-examination he admits that the apology letter Ex.P-13 was written voluntarily by him without any pressure. He further stated that the said letter was not got written by putting pressure on him.

¶56

The other witnesses are witnesses of the ACB who have stated about the prosecution case. As stated above, in order to establish a case, the prosecution is required to establish the demand of bribe & receipt of the same beyond reasonable doubt. From the evidence on record, it is reflecting that the transcript the voice in the Tape Recorder was reduced in writing vide Ex.P-10.

¶57

Narendra Sharma (PW-16) has stated that the Tape Recorder was given to the complainant on 06.02.2009 and it was submitted before him on 10.02.2009 by the complainant and during that period the Tape Record was in possession of the complainant. This witness also admits that no certificate under Section 65(B) of the Evidence Act, 1872 is not annexed with regard to transcript of the Tape Record. The learned Trial Court found this as a weak peace of evidence.

¶58

¶59

The learned trial court gave much emphasis on recovery of apology letter (Ex-P/13) which was recovered from the drawer of the table of the appellant. It has been held by the learned trial court relied upon the statement of complainant Indrabhan Singh Marco (PW-2) that the apology letter was written by him on saying of appellant and he kept in the drawer. It has been further held by the learned trial court that the said letter was recovered from the possession of the appellant on the basis of statement of Anil Kumar Pathak (PW-3). The learned trial court held that looking to sequence of events, the presumption of commission of offence is in favour of prosecution. The learned trial court also observed that the money was was handed over to Ramesh Yadav (deceased accused), however money was not demanded by him or no fact that there was any work pending with him is not available. Therefore, it is not possible that the complainant himself gave the money to Ramesh Yadav (deceased accused). The learned trial court also observed that from apology letter (Ex-P/13) it is vivid that the appellant came to know about the complaint made by the complainant to ACB because of which he got the apology letter written from the complainant and did not receive the money directly and received it through peon Ramesh Yadav (deceased accused). On the basis of the such analysis learned trial court convicted the appellant.

¶60

Appellant examined himself under section 315 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.). He stated that the complainant got himself relieved from his previous posting and directly took charge of promoted post of Upper Division Teacher in Middle School Bhadi which was against the rules. Therefore, an explanation was sought from the complainant on 04.02.2009 (Ex-D/3). He further deposed that complainant give the information of relieving letter dated 02.02.2009 which was received in his office on 06.06.2009 (Ex-D/1). He further stated that he knows the complainant he came with the ACB officials and not

¶61

¶62

before that. It has been further stated that joining of complainant was informed by to Assistant Commissioner Bilaspur vide letter dated 08.02.2009 receipt which is dated 09.02.2009 (Ex-D/4). These letters were received by ACB from him during the proceedings. He further stated that as the joining intimation and work related to it already been accomplished he did not demand money nor accepted from complainant. He further stated the drawer of table is not locked and is always opened. He denied that the apology letter (Ex-P/13) was given taking it out from the drawer of table. In his statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. he took a defence that as he has sought an explanation from the complainant, he is envious with him and he has been falsely implicated.

¶63

On minute examination of the witnesses it appears on the record that the bribe money was not recovered from the possession of the appellant. The said money was recovered from the possession of Ramesh Yadav (deceased accused). The learned trial court has not given any due credence to the transcript the conversation recorded in the Tape Recorder between the appellant and the complainant Indrabhan Singh Marco (PW-2) in absence of certificate under Section 65(B) of the Evidence Act. The transcript is Ex. P-10 & perusal of which also does not in clear terms indicate as to whether demand was made by the appellant. Rather C.K. Singh (acquitted accused) has stated in the transcript that the complainant is saying that 10,000/- is more, 1,000/- may be reduced. In one place according to the transcript, the appellant is saying give the money who will provide relieving from back date. Apart from this, it is not stated as to whether any specific demand was made for relieving order. Even otherwise this was found a weak piece of evidence by the learned trial court and cannot be relied upon beyond reasonable doubt.

¶64

¶65

Ex. D-1 is a letter given by the Head Master of Girls Primary School Badhi, CG to Block Education Officer Pendra dated 02.02.2009 indicating therein that the appellant has been relieved on account of promotion. Ex. D-3 is the show cause notice dated 04.02.2009, calling for the explanation from the complainant Indrabhan Singh Marco (PW-2) as to why despite of order passed by the Office of Block Education Officer, the charge has been taken by the appellant. In response to that, vide Ex. D-2 the complainant Indrabhan Singh Marco (PW-2) replied that he was relieved on 02.02.2009 and already joined the promoted post. This letter was received on 05.02.2009. Ex. D-4 dated 08.02.2009 is a letter by the Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development, Bilaspur mentioning that the list of promoted teachers who have joined on 08.02.2009 is being sent to him. Ex.P-13 is the apology letter which was said to have been written by the complainant said to be recovered from the drawer of the table of the appellant, which is addressed to Anti Corruption Bureau, Bilaspur indicating therein that if any false complaint is made against the appellant is false and fabricated.

¶66

Constitution bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Gpvt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1209 answered the question referred for consideration as “ In the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct/primary, oral/documentary evidence) it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.” and held as under in paragraph 68:- “68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:

¶67

(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act.

¶68

¶69

(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.

¶70

(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.

¶71

(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:

¶72

(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.

¶73

(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

¶74

(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and inturn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.

¶75

(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.

¶76

(f) In the event the complainant turns ‘hostile’, or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal

¶77

¶78

gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.

¶79

(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) 27 (i) and (ii) of the Act.

¶80

(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.”

¶81

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶82

Thereafter, in case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Gpvt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 211 Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

¶83

“11. …….The presumption under Section 20 can be invoked only when the two basic facts required to be proved under Section 7, are proved. The said two basic facts are ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of gratification. The presumption under Section 20 is that unless the contrary is proved, the acceptance of gratification shall be presumed to be for a motive or reward, as contemplated by Section 7. It means that once the basic facts of the demand of illegal gratification and acceptance thereof are proved, unless the contrary are proved, the Court will have to presume that the gratification was demanded and accepted as a motive or reward as contemplated by Section 7. However, this presumption is rebuttable. Even on the basis of the preponderance of probability, the accused can rebut the presumption.”

¶84

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶85

From the evidence brought on record by the prosecution the it is quite vivid that the bribe money was not recovered from the appellant. The hands of the appellant did not turn pink on washing. The complainant Indrabhan Singh Marco (PW-2) was already relived from his posting and joined in the promoted post before lodging the complaint by him. It is also established that the appellant gave a notice asking for his explanation. The appellant had already send the details of teachers who have joined on account of promotion to his higher official. As such

¶86

¶87

there appears to be no strong motive for appellant to demand bribe for grant of permission of reliving of the Indrabhan Singh Marco (PW-2) when he has already been relieved. The defence of the appellant that on account of sending the notice to Indrabhan Singh Marco (PW-2) asking for explanation hence he has been falsely implicated, appears to be more probable. The complainant (PW-2) stated in his statement that the complaint Ex-P/3 was given by him on the saying of ACB official. He further stated that it is correct to say that what I have said about the BEO demanding and giving the amount is because of misguidance and lack of information. He further stated that apology letter (Ex-P13) was voluntarily written by him without any pressure. He also admitted he has given letter in the BEO office with regard to his reliving and joining. Therefore, on deep analysis of evidence available on record and in light of the above case laws, this court is of the opinion that appellant was able to rebut the presumption on the basis of the preponderance of probability, the prosecution failed to prove the three essential ingredients (i) demand, (ii) acceptance and (iii) recovery beyond reasonable doubt. With due respect the judgment relied upon the prosecution will not come to its rescue in the given facts and evidence on record.

¶88

As a result the impugned judgment is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted from all charges. Appeal thus allowed. Appellant is on bail. His bail bond will remain in force for six months in view of section 437A of Cr.P.C. Record with copy of this judgment be sent to learned trial court.

¶89

Sd/-

¶90

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶91

Parul / Pawan

Ramgopal Sahu R. G. Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramgopal Sahu R. G. Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandhya Rani Denjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Ramoo Ram Dhruwe Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Preeti Goswami Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gopal Prasad Bind (G.P. Bind) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sadhuram Bharadwaj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh