Court Finds Insufficient Evidence of Bribe Demand and Acceptance Against Suresh Kurre
In a significant judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court has acquitted Suresh Kurre, a Labour Inspector, accused under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt.
The case originated from a complaint by Ramesh Kumar Yadav, who alleged that Kurre demanded a bribe for processing payments related to a training program conducted by Yadav's institution under a government scheme. Despite a trap set by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, the evidence presented was deemed inadequate.
The court, presided by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, highlighted several deficiencies in the prosecution's case. Key among these was the lack of corroboration by independent witnesses and the failure to substantiate the alleged demand of a bribe. The court noted that both independent witnesses present during the trap did not hear any demand for money from Kurre.
The judgment also pointed out that the investigation did not verify whether any payment was actually pending to Yadav's institution, and the recorded conversation intended to prove the demand was not subjected to forensic analysis. These investigative lapses significantly weakened the prosecution's case.
Citing precedents from the Supreme Court and various High Courts, the judgment emphasized that mere recovery of tainted currency is insufficient for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act without concrete evidence of demand and acceptance. The court concluded that the benefit of doubt must favor the accused in the absence of such proof.
Consequently, the court set aside the trial court's conviction and sentence, allowing the appeal filed by Kurre. His bail bonds will remain operative for six months as per procedural requirements.
Bottom Line:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Mere recovery of tainted currency notes is insufficient to sustain conviction unless the prosecution proves the demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt.
Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 7, Evidence Act, 1872 Section 65B, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 313, Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act.
Suresh Kurre v. State of Chhattisgarh, (Chhattisgarh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2868015
