C. V. Narayana Reddy Vs State Thr Central Bureau of Investigation (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court held that conviction under section 7 and section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [PC Act] without cogent evidence to prove demand of illegal gratification cannot be sustained. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Facts- By this appeal the Appellant has challenged Judgment and Order dated 21.10.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, North Goa at Panaji, whereby the Appellant has been held guilty for offences punishable u/s. 7 and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Notably, for conviction u/s. 7 of the PC Act, the accused is sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of ₹ 25,000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment of three months. For conviction u/s. 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act the Accused is sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of ₹ 25,000/-and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment of three months. Both sentences to run concurrently.
Conclusion- It is evident that the discrepancies and variance in the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3 are not trivial in nature. In fact, they are so divergent and materially inconsistent that they go to the root of the matter. Assuming that the fact of recovery of the tainted notes is taken again the Appellant, even then it is a settled position of law that mere acceptance of any amount de hors the proof of demand, ipso facto would not be sufficient to bring home the charge under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act.
