Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"6. PW 1 Ramesh, the complainant did not support the prosecution case. He disowned making the complaint in Ext. P-1 and stated in his examination-in- chief that the accused had not demanded anything from him and he did not know what is written in Ext. P-1 and the police have not recorded his statement in respect to this case. He was, therefore, declared hostile. However, PW 3 Kumaraswamy, panch witness has testified that after being summoned by PW 4 Inspector Santosh Kumar on 18-2-2000, the contents of Ext. P-1 were explained to him in the presence of the complainant and he accompanied the complainant to the house of the accused, wherein, the complainant gave the sum of Rs 500 to the accused as illegal gratification. It is on the aforesaid basis that the liability of the appellant-accused for commission of the offences alleged was held to be proved, notwithstanding the fact that in his evidence the complainant PW 1 Ramesh had not supported the prosecution case.
"8. In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case insofar as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint (Ext. P-11) before LW 9, and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW 1 and the contents of Ext. P-11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208

8. The above decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. When PW 1 Ramesh himself had disowned what he has stated in his initial complaint in Ext. P-1 before PW 4 Inspector Santosh Kumar and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW 3 Kumaraswamy and the contents of Ext. P-1 complaint cannot be relied upon to conclude that the said material furnishes proof of demand allegedly made by the accused. The High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are liable to be set aside."

8. In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case insofar as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint (Ext. P-11) before LW 9, and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW 1 and the contents of Ext. P-11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) is NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 21 CRA-9915-2018 concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established.