Case Title: Jai Narayan v. State
Date of Decision: September 6, 2023
Case Number: CRL.A. 259/2007
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma
Introduction
This case involves an appeal challenging a judgment and sentencing order passed by the Special Judge in a case arising from a complaint filed with the Anti-Corruption Branch. The appellant, Jai Narayan, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for allegedly accepting a bribe. The appeal was filed under Section 374(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Factual Background
On August 5, 2003, the complainant, Jai Narayan Saini, filed a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Branch alleging that the appellant, a meter reader, had demanded a bribe of Rs. 500 for issuing duplicate water bills. When the complainant refused, the appellant allegedly reduced the demand to Rs. 300, with the promise of issuing duplicate water bills in the name of the complainant’s wife. A raid was conducted by the Anti-Corruption Branch on the same day, resulting in the appellant’s arrest while accepting the alleged bribe. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered, charges were framed, and the appellant pleaded not guilty, leading to the trial.
Legal Issues
The key legal issues in this case include:
- Whether the prosecution has proven the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt?
- Whether the appellant can be convicted solely based on the recovery of the bribe money without sufficient evidence of demand?
Contentions
- The appellant contended that he had been falsely implicated, and there was no demand for a bribe.
- The complainant’s testimony did not support the prosecution’s case.
- The appellant argued that the raid witness’s testimony was insufficient to prove guilt.
- The appellant raised doubts about the presence of the panch witness during the raid and their reliability.
- It was contended that the prosecution failed to establish that the appellant had the authority to convert meter connections from commercial to domestic use.
Observation and Analysis
The Special Judge relied on the testimony of the raiding officer and the panch witness, concluding that the appellant had accepted the bribe money. The judge also noted the appellant’s failure to explain the recovery of the money from his possession. However, the complainant did not fully support the prosecution’s case, and there were contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses.
Decision of the Court
The High Court observed that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential elements for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In this case, the prosecution failed to establish the demand beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appellant’s conviction based on mere recovery of money was not sustainable. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentencing order against the appellant.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by – Ananya Chaudhary
