Facts
The complainant was a licensed Labor Contractor who had two operating establishments, and the appellant was the Assistant Commissioner of Labor, Circle I, at Anjaiah Karmica Bhavan, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad. The complainant approached DSP Raju to file a complaint stating that the Appellant had asked for a bribe to renew his license. According to the complainant, the previous evening, when he had met the appellant to talk about the renewal of the license, the appellant asked for a bribe of ₹ 9,000. The complainant paid ₹ 3,000 then and there and was advised by the appellant that the rest shall be paid within the next two days. Based on this complaint, the DSP filed an FIR, set up a trap team and asked the complainant to bring the rest payable money in the denominations of ₹ 100.
The trap team covered the notes with phenolphthalein powder, conducted the sodium carbonate solution test, and advised the complainant that he should be careful not to touch the currency to prevent testing positive in the sodium carbonate test. The complainant was to go to the appellant’s office and give him the money if he demanded it and signal that the bribery had taken place by wiping his face with a handkerchief. The complainant and the trap team carried on the trap process but when they did the sodium carbonate test, the appellant did not test positive for it, so the complainant was called in, and when questioned, he told the trap team that the appellant had asked him to keep the money in his left drawer and when checked, the money was in the drawer. The Trial court, after looking into the evidence provided and witnesses produced, acquitted the appellant on the grounds that the prosecution’s case was faulty and was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The High Court, however, convicted the Appellant, and therefore, he had approached the Supreme Court.
Issues
The main issue before the court was whether the High Court was right in convicting the Appellant.
Legal Provisions
- Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, states the offences relating to public servants being bribed.
- Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, states that there is criminal misconduct by a public servant if he intentionally enriches himself illicitly during the period of his office.
- Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, states the punishment for criminal misconduct.
Analysis
The Supreme Court, before looking into the matter at hand, cited the case of Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 in which the five-point canonical test was laid down. As per this test, the appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence submitted before it; the CrPC puts no restrictions or limitations on the exercise of such power by the appellate court, various expressions like substantial and compelling reasons, distorted conclusions shall not curtail the extensive powers given to the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, in case of appeal on acquittal there is double presumption of innocence and if there are two reasonable conclusions then the appellate court shall go with the one which shall not overturn the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court. The Supreme Court stated that, though there is complete power to appeal and review evidence and revise the judgment and order, since there is a condition of double presumption of innocence, the powers of the appellate court are limited. Therefore, judicial interpretation, as mentioned in the Chandrappa case, is possible only if the trial court’s decision is perverse, based on misreading or ignoring of material evidence, or there is a miscarriage of justice.
The Supreme Court in the present case observed that the trial court was right in its decision to acquit the appellant. While examining the evidence, the Supreme Court noted that there were many gaps in the evidence produced by the prosecution, and they were not able to establish their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The High Court has based its decision on the evidence of the money found in the drawer of the appellant, reasoning that an intelligent government servant would be aware of the sodium carbonate test and the appellant would have instructed the complainant to keep the money in his drawer to prevent accusations and take it with him at a suitable time. The Supreme Court specified that mere suspicion is not evidence and cannot be upheld in a court of law. The Supreme also mentioned that defense witnesses 1 and 2 have stated that the appellant took a short restroom break while they found the complainant in his office. The appellant’s assistant in the office also mentioned that while the appellant was in the restroom, he heard the drawers opening, and when he went to look at it, he saw the complainant there, and the complainant told him that he just shut it because it was open.
Also, the trap team did not see the appellant receive or ask for money; they waited outside while only the complainant went inside, and they have failed to prove that bribery actually took place, therefore, the analysis done by the Trial Court is fair and just, and the High Court has failed to look into the issue in a fair manner.
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court dated 08.07.2011 and restored the order of acquittal dated 28.11.2003 passed by the Court of Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. Since the appellant was on bail, the court also discharged his bail bonds.
Conclusion
In this case, the Supreme Court has established that suspicion is not evidence and shall be entertained by the court of law. It also established that appellate courts are to be careful when taking a case of appeal on acquittal, as there is a double presumption of innocence under the criminal jurisprudence of innocent until proven guilty, and also the acquittal order of the trial court.
Click here to read more: P. Somaraju versus State of Andhra Pradesh
“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 falls into the 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 I Sharan
