By means of PTI
NEW DELHI: The Ideally suited Courtroom Monday stated the evidence of call for for bribe through a public servant and its acceptance through the authentic is very important for organising the offence underneath the availability of the anti-corruption regulation which pertains to executive servants taking unlawful gratification.
The apex court docket stated that offence underneath Segment 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act on the subject of public servants taking bribe calls for a requirement of unlawful gratification and its acceptance.
The phase offers with offence through public servants taking gratification as opposed to criminal remuneration in admire of an authentic act.
A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka stated this whilst atmosphere apart the judgement of the Telangana Prime Courtroom which had upheld the conviction of a lady public servant, who was once running as a industrial tax officer at Secunderabad, for the alleged offences underneath the PC Act together with underneath phase 7.
“The offence underneath phase 7 of the PC Act on the subject of public servants taking bribe calls for a requirement of unlawful gratification and the acceptance thereof. The evidence of call for of bribe through a public servant and its acceptance through him is sine quo non for organising the offence underneath phase 7 of the PC Act,” the bench stated in its 17-page judgement.
The highest court docket delivered the decision at the plea filed through the accused difficult the prime court docket judgement.
The bench stated that proof of the complainant within the case about call for for bribe through the appellant was once certainly not dependable.
“Therefore, we conclude that the call for made through the appellant has now not been conclusively proved,” the bench stated, including that the model of the complainant in his examination-in-chief concerning the call for made through the appellant every so often is an growth.
“Thus, this can be a case the place the call for of unlawful gratification through the appellant was once now not proved through the prosecution. Thus, the call for which is sine quo non for organising the offence underneath phase 7 was once now not established,” the apex court docket stated.
Whilst permitting the attraction, the bench stated the conviction for the offences punishable underneath sections 7 and 13(1)(d) learn with phase 13(2) of the PC Act is put aside and the appellant is acquitted of the fees framed towards her.
In line with the prosecution, the appellant was once running as a industrial tax officer at Secunderabad and the complainant was once running on the related time as a manager of a co-operative society.
It was once stated that the complainant was once doing the paintings of submitting returns of business tax of the society.
It was once alleged that despite the fact that the evaluate of the society for the yr 1997-98 was once finished, until February 2000, the returns for the yr 1996-97 remained pending for evaluate.
The prosecution alleged that the appellant had issued a understand in February 2000 calling upon the society to provide money e book, normal ledger and buy and gross sales statements for the yr 1996-97.
Thereafter, the complainant attended the place of job of the appellant at the side of the data and it was once alleged that the officer had demanded a bribe of Rs 3,000 for issuing an evaluate order.
The prosecution had additional claimed that the appellant reiterated the call for which was once scaled right down to Rs 2,000.
In March 2000, the complainant, at the side of the managing director of the society, approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) at Hyderabad and then a entice was once laid.
The prosecution had alleged that after the complainant tendered the contaminated forex notes of Rs 2,000 to the accused in her place of job, as an alternative of taking the quantity without delay, she took out a diary from her desk drawer requested him to stay the forex notes within the diary.
The particular court docket, which had convicted the accused, had discovered that call for and acceptance of bribe was once proved through the prosecution.
Later, the prime court docket had affirmed the order of the particular court docket.
