Supreme Court Acquits Deceased in Corruption Case: Bribe Demand Not Proven Beyond Doubt

The Supreme Court while hearing the appeal filed by the widow of Mohanachandran N.K., a deceased former Lower Division Clerk at the Passport Office, Thiruvananthapuram, allowed the appeal thereby setting aside his conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant's deceased husband was convicted in a bribary case and the convictopm was upheld by the High Court of Kerala.

The case was stemmed from a complaint by a passport applicant (PW1) who alleged the accused demanded Rs.500 as gratification for expedited processing, over and above the lawful Rs.1000 passport fee in the year 2003. A CBI trap was laid, and marked currency notes were handed over at the accused's residence.

Observations made by Supreme Court: The Supreme Court noted that the original complainant (PW1) did not support the prosecution's case regarding the demand for a bribe during trial. Also, PW1 stated he was "misled" by a CBI person to trap the accused, necessitating the courts to be "circumspect in evaluating the evidence".

The Apex Court, while acknowledging that demand for a bribe can be proved by circumstantial evidence even if the complainant turns hostile, emphasized the specific circumstances of this case.

The Court observed that it was undisputed that Rs.1000 of the Rs.1200 handed over was lawful passport fee, and that the accused's defense, made under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, stated he believed he was only receiving the lawful fee and was unaware of the extra Rs.200 hidden between Rs.500 notes.

The Court held that it did not find any reliable evidence that the accused counted the money or that it was counted in front of him, nor was there other evidence to show he was aware the amount was in excess of the lawful fee, and stressed the need "To make out an offence there had to be cogent proof of demand".

While allowing the appeal the Apex Court held that given the complainant's non-support for the demand and the plausible defense of unawareness, the Courts below ought not to have "brushed aside" the accused's explanation.

Thus, the Apex Court concluded that this was a fit case where the benefit of doubt had to be given to the accused. The conviction was set aside, and the deceased accused was treated as acquitted.

Coram: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.