Court Finds Insufficient Evidence for Conviction Under Prevention of Corruption Act
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has acquitted two engineers from the Flood Control Department accused of demanding and accepting illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court, presided over by Ms. Chandrasekharan Sudha, J., set aside the lower court's conviction, citing lack of foundational facts proving the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
The case involved the alleged demand and acceptance of bribes by Assistant Engineer V.K. Dutta and Junior Engineer Dinesh Garg from a civil contractor, Dinesh Garg, for expediting payment of pending dues related to construction works. The prosecution argued that the engineers demanded Rs. 1,800 as a bribe, split equally between them.
However, the High Court highlighted several inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. The judgment noted that the prosecution failed to establish that any demand for bribe was made. The muster rolls presented by the defense indicated that the accused were at the work site and not at the office during the alleged time of demand. Additionally, discrepancies in witness testimonies and the timeline of events further weakened the prosecution's case.
The court observed that the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof of foundational facts regarding the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The absence of such proof in this case entitled the accused to the benefit of doubt.
Furthermore, the judgment criticized the prosecution for not examining crucial witnesses who could have substantiated the allegations. The court drew adverse inference under Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, due to the withholding of material evidence.
The acquittal underscores the judiciary's stance that suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal convictions, emphasizing the need for the prosecution to present clear and convincing evidence.
Bottom Line:
Prosecution must establish foundational facts of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2), and 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 313(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Dinesh Garg v. C.B.I., (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2876736
