Mere Recovery Of Amount Without Conclusive Proof Of Demand Not Sufficient To Prove Charges Under Prevention Of Corruption Act: J&K High Court

The J&K High Court has held that a material discrepancy in the prosecution's case with respect to the mode and manner in which the demand for a bribe is made is sufficient to acquit the accused under the Corruption Act. The court also emphasized the principle that "Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, without proof of the demand, would not be sufficient to bring home the charge against the accused."The Court observed that there were material contradictions between the statements of the complainant and the shadow witness in respect of the mode and manner in which the demand and acceptance of ₹5,000/- was made by the respondent. The court said, "These contradictions cause serious doubt, the benefit of which must go to the accused/respondent."A bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal noted that the prosecution's case was centered on the demand of 10,000/ made by the Respondent, out of which ₹5,000/ was paid by the complainant for signing and stamping her M.Ed synopsis. However, the court said that the complainant admitted that the synopsis on the file was neither signed nor stamped by the respondent, and she handed over ₹5,000/- to the respondent without checking the same. The court observed, "It is difficult to believe that the complainant, without ascertaining the seal and signature on the synopsis, would pay ₹5,000/- to the respondent."The court also said that there was nothing on record to suggest that the complainant recieved the synopsis for which the bribe was given, and the same was also not forthcoming from the statement of the shadow witness. The Court stated that all of these discrepancies in the mode and manner of demand and acceptance raise a doubt, the benefit of which must be given to the accused/respondent.BACKGROUND:In this case, an FIR was lodged against an Assistant Professor of the Government College of Education, Jammu, for demanding a bribe of ₹10,000/- in order to clear the M.Ed. synopsis. The Anti-Corruption Branch laid down a trap based on the information provided by the complainant. The accused was caught with ₹5,000/-, alleged to be the first installment of the said bribe amount. The accused was charged under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) and Section 4-A of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006. The Trial Court acquitted the accused, citing a lack of conclusive proof of demand.The High Court held that the court can only interfere with the findings given by the Trial Court if the same are found to be perverse and based on an impossible view of the evidence. The court held that acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and refused to interfere with the Trial Court's decision.Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.APPEARANCE:Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for PetitionersAbhinav Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abhirash Sharma, Advocate for RespondentsCase-Title :Union Territory of J&K vs Ashu JollyCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 32Click Here To Read/Download Order

Mere Recovery Of Amount Without Conclusive Proof Of Demand Not Sufficient To Prove Charges Under Prevention Of Corruption Act: J&K High Court

Aleem Syeed

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mere Recovery Of Amount Without Conclusive Proof Of Demand Not Sufficient To Prove Charges Under Prevention Of Corruption Act: J&K High Court

Aleem Syeed

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers