GURUVIAH Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, who are village assistants, challenge their conviction under Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as the Act ) with fine and a default stipulation, sentencing them to one year of rigorous imprisonment. The appellants have been acquitted of the charge under Section 7 of the Act and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The village administrative officer, accused no.1, was convicted under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 12 of the Act. He has since been deceased during the pendency of his separate appeal.

(2.) The appellants were village assistants in the office of the village administrative officer, arrayed as accused 2 and 3. On 17.12.2003, P.W. 2 lodged a written complaint before the Additional Superintendent of Police (Vigilance and AntiCorruption) that the village administrative officer had demanded a sum of Rs.600/- for signing the necessary papers to facilitate transfer of electric connection in the name of the complainant. The illegal gratification is stated to have been handed over to one of the appellants on the instruction of the village administrative officer, and who after counting it handed it over to the other appellant. They were apprehended by the trap officials immediately thereafter and the money recovered.

(3.) Learned senior counsel Shri S. Nagamuthu, appearing for the appellants, submitted that according to P.W.2 the demand had been exclusively made by the village administrative officer alone. The latter alone was competent to sign the necessary papers to facilitate transfer of the electric connection. The appellants were menial assistants in his office. There was no occasion for them to demand any illegal gratification as they were incompetent to grant any favour to P.W.2. The appellants had never made any demand for illegal gratification from P.W.2. They had only received the money from P.W.2 on the instructions of the village administrative officer in the bonafide belief that it was payment towards demand of arrears of land tax, for which a receipt had already been issued earlier without actual payment. In the absence of any proof for demand and acceptance by the appellants, they cannot be convicted on assumptions and presumptions. There is no proof of any conspiracy. Mere recovery from the appellants was not sufficient for conviction. It is unlikely that a demand of Rs.600/- would be made to facilitate a subsidy of Rs.625/-. Reliance in support of the submissions was placed on Virendranath vs. State of Maharashtra, 1996 11 SCC 688.