Court Finds Prosecution's Case Fraught with Inconsistencies and Procedural Lapses, Grants Benefit of Doubt to Accused
In a significant decision, the Delhi High Court has acquitted Tej Narain Sharma, a Section Officer accused of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The judgment, delivered by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, overturned the 2002 conviction, citing multiple inconsistencies and procedural lapses in the prosecution’s case.
The case originated from a complaint filed by Amar Nath Oberoi, who alleged that a bribe was demanded by officials of the Directorate of Audit, including Sharma, for a favorable audit report. However, the High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which are critical for a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
A key issue in the judgment was the prosecution's inability to establish a clear demand for the bribe by Sharma. The court noted that while the initial demand was allegedly made by another officer, R.N. Arora, no charges were brought against him. This oversight, along with the mechanical nature of the sanction order that failed to reflect the actual case details, significantly weakened the prosecution's stance.
The judgment also highlighted discrepancies in the evidence presented, such as inconsistencies in witness testimonies and procedural errors in handling the evidence, particularly the hand wash solutions. The court expressed concerns about the chain of custody and the credibility of the CFSL report, which further cast doubt on the prosecution's case.
Justice Ohri underscored the importance of proving demand and acceptance of a bribe as a fact in issue, emphasizing that mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction. The court's decision was influenced by the cumulative effect of these inconsistencies, leading to the extension of the benefit of doubt to Sharma.
Ultimately, the High Court set aside the earlier judgment of conviction and sentence, directing that Sharma's bail bonds be cancelled and sureties discharged. This verdict underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the principles of justice, ensuring that convictions are based on solid and incontrovertible evidence.
Bottom Line:
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Prosecution's failure to establish foundational facts and inconsistencies in evidence can lead to acquittal.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)
Tej Narain Sharma v. State of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2834518
