In a notable judgment, the Telangana High Court acquitted E. Rama Rao, a public servant in the Water Works Department, who had been convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court underscored that the mere recovery of alleged bribe money, without concrete evidence of demand and acceptance, is insufficient for conviction.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a complaint filed by a contractor (referred to as P.W.1) associated with the Water Works Department. The contractor alleged that he had undertaken maintenance tasks, including leakage repairs and wall chowkage in the Jeedimetla Section, which were under the jurisdiction of the accused, E. Rama Rao. Upon completion of these tasks, the contractor requested Rao to document them in the Measurement Book (M Book) for billing purposes. It was alleged that on December 26, 2006, Rao demanded a bribe of Rs. 20,000 for preparing the necessary estimates and bills, which was later reduced to Rs. 16,000.
Following this allegation, the contractor approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) on January 2, 2007. A trap was organized the next day. During the operation, the contractor met with Rao, and after about an hour, signaled the trap team, indicating that the bribe had been accepted. The team entered Rao's office and found the marked currency in his left shirt pocket. Documents related to the contractor's work were also seized during the proceedings.
Trial Court Proceedings
In the trial that ensued, the prosecution presented eight witnesses and various documents to substantiate their claims. In his defense, Rao contended that the bribe money had been forcibly placed in his pocket by the contractor due to a dispute over illegal tap connections. An independent witness supported this claim, testifying that the money was indeed thrust upon Rao during the trap operation.
High Court's Analysis and Judgment
Upon reviewing the evidence, Justice K. Surender observed that the prosecution failed to provide concrete evidence that the contractor had executed the eight works he claimed. Testimonies from the General Manager (P.W.6) and the Investigating Officer (P.W.8) revealed that the contractor did not possess the necessary permissions to undertake the said works. Moreover, during cross-examination, the contractor admitted that he lacked evidence to prove the execution of these tasks.
The court emphasized that for a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is imperative to establish both the demand and acceptance of a bribe. Mere possession or recovery of the alleged bribe amount is insufficient. The court cited precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Banshi Lal Yadav v. State of Bihar, which highlighted that the mere recovery of money, without proof of demand and acceptance, cannot lead to a conviction.
Furthermore, the court noted discrepancies in the prosecution's case. The lack of evidence regarding the execution of the works and the absence of pending payments to the contractor weakened the foundation of the alleged bribe demand. The court also took into account the testimony of the independent witness, who corroborated Rao's claim that the money was forcibly placed in his pocket.
Invoking Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, the court inferred that the prosecution's failure to present pertinent evidence or thoroughly investigate the contractor's claims warranted an adverse inference against them. The judgment stated, "Adverse inference has to be drawn against prosecution in the present circumstances regarding demand of bribe."
In conclusion, the court determined that the prosecution had not proven the essential element of demand for the bribe. Given the lack of substantive evidence and the benefit of the doubt principle, the court set aside the trial court's judgment and acquitted E. Rama Rao of all charges.
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling reinforces the legal principle that in bribery cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, both the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be unequivocally proven. The mere recovery of money, without corroborative evidence of these elements, is inadequate for securing a conviction. This judgment serves as a significant precedent, emphasizing the necessity for thorough and meticulous evidence collection in corruption cases.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.