Accused's Capability To Show Favour To Bribe Giver Is Not Of Very Importance In Corruption Cases: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA). The appellant, who was serving as the presenting officer in a departmental inquiry for the M.P. Tourism Department against the complainant, was found guilty of demanding and accepting illegal gratification.

A Single Bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia observed, “Whether the accused was capable of showing any favour to the bribe giver is not of very importance, but the important thing is that whether the accused had induced the bribe giver to give illegal gratification by making demand of the same or not? The impression in the mind of the bribe giver is more important.”

Advocate Gaurav Tiwari appeared for the appellant, while Advocate Abhijeet Awasthi represented the respondent.

As per the prosecution, the accused in his capacity as a presiding officer had allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 1 lakh from the complainant to drop a departmental enquiry. After the complaint regarding the same was verified, a trap was laid by the police resulting in the accused being caught red-handed with the part of the bribe amount.

After being convicted by the trial court, the accused challenged the said judgment arguing that was merely a presenting officer who had no authority to influence the enquiry's outcome. The State on the other hand argued that the competency of the accused to pass a favourable order was not a sine qua non, but the impression in the mind of the bribe giver was important.

The High Court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the trial court stating that whether the accused had the competence or not cannot be an important aspect. “The impression in the mind of the bribe-giver that the accused would be of some help is sufficient,” the Court stated.

The Bench noted that the accused being a presenting officer in a departmental enquiry pending against the complainant had demanded a bribe to get the departmental enquiry closed.

“It was the appellant who was required to put forward the case of department in the departmental enquiry. Thus, any inducement by the appellant, that he would get the departmental enquiry closed, would be sufficient to persuade the complainant to give illegal gratification. Thus, whether the appellant was capable of dropping the departmental enquiry or not is not material,” the Court remarked.

The Court held, “In absence of any challenge to the demand made by the Appellant, recovery of tainted money from the possession of the appellant, coupled with the presumption as provided under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The demand and acceptance of Rs.25,000/- is proved against the Appellant. Accordingly, the conviction of the Appellant for offence under Sections 7, 13(1) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, is hereby affirmed.”

Consequently, the Court cancelled the accused’s bail bonds and directed him to surrender before the Trial Court to undergo the remaining jail sentence.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: Gopal Shivhare v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocate Gaurav Tiwari

Respondent: Advocate Abhijeet Awasthi; Proxy Counsel Amit Dave

Click here to read/download the Order