Supreme Court: Mere Recovery Of Currency Notes Will Not Constitute An Offence U/s 7 Of Prevention of Corruption Act

Supreme Court: Mere Recovery Of Currency Notes Will Not Constitute An Offence U/s 7 Of Prevention of Corruption Act

The Supreme Court of India (SC) said in the case of N. Vijaykumar (Appellant) v. State of Tamil Nadu (Respondent) that a charge against an accused should be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused has voluntarily accepted money as a bribe

A three-judge bench of the SC comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, and M R Shah stated, "Mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute an offence under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and to prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused."

The Top Court while setting aside the judgment of the High Court (HC) added, "It is equally well settled that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused, under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act) it is reiterated that to prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be a bribe."

It clarified, "In the absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such an offence."

The factual background of the case is, the appellant was a Sanitary Inspector of Madurai Municipal Corporation and he was acquitted in a corruption case by the Trial Court.

An appeal was filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against the judgment of the Trial Court before the HC. The HC allowed the appeal filed by the State and it reversed the judgment of the Trial Court and convicted the appellant.

An appeal was filed before the SC against the order of the HC and it was noted by the Apex Court while considering the evidence on record that the demand for and acceptance of bribe amount and cell phone by the appellant, is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It further noted that there are contradictions in the depositions of key witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution.

The Bench took reference of the case C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, High Court of Kerala (2009) 3 SCC 779 and of B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13SCC 55. In these cases, the Courts while considering the cases under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act reiterated that to prove the charge under the said Act, it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be a bribe.

The Courts held that in the absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence.

It was further held by the Courts in the aforesaid judgments that "Even the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only after the demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. Hence, it is well settled that initial presumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the Trial Court."

The Apex Court noted that having regard to such evidence on record the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court is a "possible view" and as such the judgment of the HC is fit to be set aside. It added that before recording conviction under the provisions of the Act, Courts have to take utmost care in scanning the evidence.

The Bench further added, "Once a conviction is recorded under provisions of the IT Act, it casts a social stigma on the person in the society apart from serious consequences on the service rendered."

While setting aside the judgment of the HC, the Bench observed, "At the same time it is also to be noted that whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view or not, there cannot be any definite proposition and each case has to be judged on its own merits, having regard to evidence on record."