M A I N   N E W S

Mere acceptance of money not bribe: SC

New Delhi, April 25
The Supreme Court has ruled that mere acceptance of money without there being any other evidence will not be sufficient for convicting an accused on the charge of receiving bribe.

For convicting a person under Section 13(1)(d)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, there must be evidence on record that he “obtained” for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by either corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant or he obtained for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest, the court ruled.

The ruling was handed down by a three-judge Bench comprising Mr Justice M.B. Shah, Mr Justice B.P. Singh and Mr Justice S.K. Sema while partly allowing an appeal by a police officer against a judgement of the Gujarat High Court upholding a special court verdict.

The accused had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Sections 13 (1)(d) and 13 (2) of the Act and asked to pay a fine of Rs 500 for misusing his official position as a government servant.

The Bench said it had been through the evidence of the Panch witness and it was difficult to find out any statement made by him that the accused police officer demanded any amount from the complainant.

The relevant part of this witness, the court noted, suggests that when the prosecution party went to the police chowki, the accused asked the complainant as to why he had come there at all at that time.

To that, the court further noted, the complainant replied that in fact he was waiting since 1 p.m. and that he had brought one witness to be examined.

According to the prosecution version, the accused asked the complainant to come in the evening as his writer was not present. When the accused started to go towards the toilet, the complainant followed him and he gave something from his pocket to the accused who took the same and put that in his pocket.

“From this evidence, it cannot be inferred that the accused demanded any amount from the complainant or that he has obtained the same,” the court said.

It is apparent that the trial court and the high court misread the evidence of the Panch witness and held that there was a demand by the accused and the amount was paid to him by the complainant, the court said.

“It was unreasonable to hold that the accused demanded money from the complainant. The complainant denied the said story and the Panch witness had not stated so in his statement,” the apex court observed while setting aside the conviction by the high court. UNI