The Calcutta High Court upheld the acquittal of a revenue officer in a bribery case, holding that merely proving recovery of money is not sufficient to convict an accused for offences relating to demand and acceptance of bribe unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the accused both demanded and accepted the gratification with criminal intent. The Court emphasised that the twin ingredients of demand and acceptance must be established beyond reasonable doubt, and that mere recovery of cash from an accused’s possession without direct evidence of how or when it was received cannot form the basis for conviction for bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The case involved a prosecution under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against a revenue officer who was alleged to have demanded and accepted a bribe of ₹5,000 in connection with discharge of official duties. According to the prosecution’s case, the complainant had approached the revenue officer seeking facilitation in a matter within his official jurisdiction, and it was alleged that the officer demanded and subsequently accepted ₹5,000 as illegal gratification. The police registered a First Information Report and made a recovery of ₹5,000 from the officer’s custody during a search. At trial, the officer was acquitted by the trial court on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove the essential elements of the offence, particularly demand and acceptance, despite the recovery of cash. The State challenged this acquittal before the High Court.
On appeal, the High Court analysed the evidence on record, including testimony of witnesses and the circumstances of the recovery. The Court observed that while recovery of money from an accused may serve as corroborative evidence, it cannot by itself establish the occurrence of demand and acceptance of bribe unless connected to evidence showing that the accused solicited or accepted the money in relation to discharge of official functions. The High Court noted that in the absence of any independent evidence such as admission of demand, witness testimony supporting the complainant’s version, or materials demonstrating the link between the money and the official act, the recovery remained an isolated fact that did not prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court reiterated established legal principles regarding offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, stating that conviction requires proof of both elements of demand and acceptance of gratification as defined in the statute. It emphasised that recovery of money, although relevant, cannot substitute for direct evidence of demand or acceptance, and that suspicion or inference is not sufficient to meet the stringent standard of proof required in criminal cases. The High Court further pointed out that the prosecution’s case must be tested against the evidence on record to see whether it fulfils the burden of showing the accused’s culpability on both counts, and that where such proof is lacking, acquittal must follow. In the present case, the High Court found that the prosecution had not discharged this burden and that the trial court’s conclusion of acquittal was legally sustainable.
The Calcutta High Court’s decision thereby reaffirmed that in corruption cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, mere recovery of cash alleged to be bribe amounts cannot automatically lead to conviction without accompanying evidence proving that the accused had demanded and accepted the gratification in connection with his official duties. By upholding the acquittal of the revenue officer, the Court underscored the necessity of strict adherence to principles of criminal jurisprudence, including the requirement for proof beyond reasonable doubt of all essential elements of the offence.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.