Allegation of Illegal Gratification u/s 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act with uncorroborated Evidence is not Conclusive: Karnataka HC [Read Order]
The Court may, when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence, raise a presumption of fact while considering whether demand of illegal gratification has been proved by the prosecution or not
![Allegation of Illegal Gratification u/s 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act with uncorroborated Evidence is not Conclusive: Karnataka HC [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Karnataka-High-Court-Illegal-Gratification-Evidence-is-not-Conclusive-taxscan.jpg "Allegation of Illegal Gratification u/s 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act with uncorroborated Evidence is not Conclusive: Karnataka HC [Read Order]")
The Karnataka High Court held that the allegation of illegal gratification under section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with uncorroborated evidence is not conclusive. Yogesh, the petitioner challenged the judgement of conviction and order on sentence passed by Special Judge, Delhi in Criminal Case No. 39/2002 arising out of FIR No. 08/2001 registered under Sections...
The Karnataka High Court held that the allegation of illegal gratification under section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with uncorroborated evidence is not conclusive.
Yogesh, the petitioner challenged the judgement of conviction and order on sentence passed by Special Judge, Delhi in Criminal Case No. 39/2002 arising out of FIR No. 08/2001 registered under Sections 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) . Vide the impugned judgement, the appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of PC Act and vide the order on sentence, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- on each count, in default whereof, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellant was given the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.
The prosecution alleged that the complainant Chattar Singh, being in garment business, applied for sales tax registration. One Insp. Sandeep Yadav who was verifying his application, on 10.01.2001, demanded a bribe of Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant but later during their meeting on 01.02.2001, the demand was reduced to Rs. 3,000/-. Sandeep Yadav asked complainant to come to his office with the bribe amount on 02.02.2001.
What Happens After an F.I.R.? Get the full legal roadmap here - Click Here
The complainant approached Anti Corruption Branch on the same day and gave a complaint to Insp. Sudesh Kumari ( the Raiding officer ) in presence of the panch witness Om Prakash Gupta. The complainant arranged Rs.3,000/- in cash in the form of five GC notes in the denomination of Rs.500/- and Rs.100/- each. In pre-trap proceedings, the serial numbers of GC notes were noted in presence of the panch witness and complainant, and the notes were also treated with Phenolphthalein powder. A trap was organised.
The Raid officer along with complainant, panch witness and other members of the raiding team reached the Sales Tax Office, ITO at 2.50 P.M. One another person namely Mr. Sanjeev Miglani, who was complainant's Chartered Accountant also accompanied the raiding party. Though Sandeep Yadav was not there, the appellant, a Sales Tax Officer, met the complainant and bribe of Rs. 1500/- was recovered from him. The Raid officer also recovered Rs. 200/- from one Reena Sapra, the stenographer. The wash of both the hands of the appellant and wash of left pocket of his shirt were taken separately in the solution of sodium carbonate which turned pink. The appellant and co-accused Reena Sapra were thereafter apprehended.
What Happens After an F.I.R.? Get the full legal roadmap here - Click Here
The appellant, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. claimed that he was innocent and that he had been falsely implicated in the case. Vide the impugned judgement, while the appellant was convicted, the co-accused Reena Sapra was acquitted of all charges. On behalf of the appellant, the impugned judgment has been assailed on the ground that the testimonies of the material witnesses do not support the prosecution case. Besides, the depositions also do not inspire confidence being full of material improvements and that the impugned judgement has been passed on the basis of surmises and conjectures. The alleged demand was ascribed to Insp. Sandeep Yadav only and not to the appellant. The complaint does not even mention the appellant's name.
The bench viewed that to establish an offence under Section 7 or 13 of the PC Act, the factum of prior demand for illegal gratification by the public servant has to be proved as a fact in issue. Mere proof of acceptance would not by itself be sufficient and proof of demand is a sine qua non for securing a conviction under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and(ii) of the PC Act. G.
What Happens After an F.I.R.? Get the full legal roadmap here - Click Here
It was viewed that the Court may, when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence, raise a presumption of fact while considering whether demand of illegal gratification has been proved by the prosecution or not.
Upon a careful analysis of the testimonies as well as the material placed on record, the single bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri.
What Happens After an F.I.R.? Get the full legal roadmap here - Click Here
observed that even in terms of the testimony of complainant which remains uncorroborated on the material aspects, does not inspire confidence to conclusively prove the allegations against the appellant under Sections 7,13(1)(d) of PC Act.
The bench set aside the conviction order, and the bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
