Mere Recovery Of Bribe Without Any Proof Is Not Enough To Convict: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Officer's Conviction Under PC Act

Setting aside the conviction of a junior engineer who allegedly sought a bribe for clearing the pending bills of a contractor, the Telangana High Court reiterated that mere recovery of illegal gratification would not be sufficient to convict an individual or prove the charges in the absence of any proof of such demand. 

As per the facts, the petitioner had allegedly insisted on paying a bribe amount of rupees Rs. 50,000  for clearing the pending bills. Thereafter when trap proceedings were set and the tainted money was recovered from the drawer of the accused his hands had tested positive for the trap paint.

Justice K Surender noted that although the trap amount was found in the drawer of the accused and the hands of the accused tested positive for the trap paint, the bills were already been signed by the accused and he had no say in the final clearance of the bills.

The court further referred to Supreme Court's decision in N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu where 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". It further referred to Supreme Court's decision in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of AP where it was 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.

The high court thereafter said, “In the background of the discussion above, it emerges that no work was pending with the appellant as claimed by PW.1 nor any demand was made. 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 appellant is extended benefit of doubt and the appeal is allowed”. 

As per the facts, the contractor who was appointed to carry out works in the University of Hyderabad raised a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), alleging that the junior engineer who was to clear his bills, had demanded a bribe amount of Rs. 50,000 for the same. The next day the trap proceedings were conducted and the tainted amount was recovered from the accused. His hands also tested positive for the trap paint. On the basis of the same, the accused/appellant was convicted by the Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, under sections 7 & 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Against this the appellant moved the high court. 

The appellant contended that he had no say in the clearance of bills and his job was restricted only till making entries in the log. Further, it was also noted that the appellant had already signed the bill and the clearance of bills vested with the assistant engineer. The appellant also contended that all the bills of the complainants were already cleared and it could not even be proved that he had phoned the complainants from his registered number seeking the bribe.

With respect to how the tainted amount appeared in the drawer of the accused and the paint on his hand, the appellant explained that the prosecution witness who had allegedly come to give the appellant the bribe was positioned close to the drawer and could have dropped the money in the drawer. He said that while the trap proceedings were on going, one Raghavendra Kumar entered his office, caught hold of him by his hands and dragged him outside of his office. Upon his return, he saw the money. The appellant contended that Raghavendra could have the trap paint on his hands, which could have transferred to the hands of the accused upon contact.

He said that Kumar who is a material witness had not been examined.

Considering all the above-mentioned aspects, the court noted that the bills were already cleared and that the appellant had no say in the clearance of bills. It also noted that the complainant had a previous verbal altercation with the accused.

It thus allowed the appeal and appellant's conviction was set aside.

Case title: Sri V.V.V.N.S.S.Prasad vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Counsel for appellant: M.V.Hanumantha Rao

Counsel for the respondent: Srinivas Kapatia, Special PP for CBI

Click Here To Read/Download Order