Proof of bribe demand essential says Bombay HC; acquits a cop in 2009 case – Times of India

MUMBAI: Bombay high court recently acquitted a police officer attached to New Mumbai Police Commissionerate under the Prevention of Corruption Act after holding that the voice sample did not match.
A special Judge in Alibag had in 2013 convicted him for a 2009 case of alleged bribery and hafta demand.
The HC bench of Justice Anuja Prabhudessai however after going through the record said the forensic laboratory report of the voice sample of the accused did not match with the alleged recorded conversation between him and the complainant, a scrap dealer, and the Sim Numbers of the alleged phone were also not in the name of the accused. Proof of demand of illegal gratification is Sine Qua Non in a corruption case, said the HC.
The HC said,” In the absence of proof of demand, mere acceptance of any amount by way of illegal gratifcation’’ or its recovery would not be sufficient to bring home the charge under the PC Act for criminal misconduct and illegal gratification.
Presumption can be drawn for offence of illegal gratification by a public servant but “only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification, which can follow only if there is proof of demand,’’ held the bench in its judgment.
The policeman, a head constable in 2009, had appealed against the conviction in 2013 and his lawyer Rajeev Kumar said the alleged demand of bribe of Rs 30,000 and later a demand of fixing a monthly hafta of Rs 3000 to absolve the complainant of an alleged crime, was not corroborated by any independent evidence as prosecution could not prove he had made the demand call.
A co-accused had accepted the money but had expired during pendency of appeal. Kumar said there is no proof to link the two accused, and mere recovery of tainted money with no proof of demand would not establish the bribery offence. Additional public prosecutor SV Gavand said money accepted by co-accused was on behalf of the policeman and hence case was proved.
The HC held “There is absolutely no evidence to prove that the voice of the speaker as recorded in the voice recorder and later transferred in the CD was that of the Appellant (policeman). Hence, the conversation recorded in the voice recorder is of little value. In this fact situation the only evidence in respect of demand of illegal gratifcation is that of the complainant, who, as held by the apex court cannot be placed on a better footing than that of an accomplice. Consequently, no conviction can be based on uncorroborated testimony.’’