COURT NEWS LIVE LAW

PC Act - Mere Acceptance Of Amount, Without Proof Of Bribe Demand, Will Not Establish Offence Under Section 7 : Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

21 Feb 2022 6:22 PM

Proof Of Demand & Acceptance Of Bribe By Public Servant Is Sine Quo Non For Establishing Offence U/Section 7 Prevention Of Corruption Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder, the bench comprising noted.

In this case, the accused, who was working as a Commercial Tax Officer, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The case of prosecution was that that on 24th February 2000, she demanded a bribe of Rs.3,000/- for issuing an assessment order. The conviction was upheld by the High Court.

In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that there is only witness to the alleged demand and acceptance. PW1 did not state that the appellant reiterated her demand at the time of trap and that the version of PW1 in his examination-in-chief about the demand made from time to time is an improvement, the court noted. Therefore, the bench concluded that the demand made by the accused has not been conclusively proved. The bench observed:

"The offence under Section 7 of the PC Act relating to public servants taking bribe requires a demand of illegal gratification and the acceptance thereof. The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act."

The bench noted the following observations made into the judgment in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another, the court said:

"The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.""

Holding that the demand which is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 was not established, the bench allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused.

Headnotes

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7, 13 - The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act - The Failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder [Referred to P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh (2015) 10 SCC 152]. (Para 7)

Case details: K. Shanthamma vs State of Telangana | CrA 261 OF 2022 | 21 Feb 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 192

Coram: Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka

Counsel: Sr. Adv V. Mohana for appellant, Adv Bina Madhavan for respondent

'You Missed The Bus' : Supreme Court Refuses Relief To Student Who Lost Admission For Not Uploading OTP Within Time

'You Missed The Bus' : Supreme Court Refuses Relief To Student Who Lost Admission For Not Uploading OTP Within Time

Shruti Kakkar

21 Feb 2022 12:33 PM

The Supreme Court today dismissed a writ petition filed by a student who was aggrieved with the loss of his admission in the Mechanical Engineering course at Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute, Mumbai as he had failed to upload the One Time Password(OTP) within the stipulated time to confirm his admission.

The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant in their order said,

"Admittedly the petitioner failed to upload OTP for confirmation of the admission at the institution within the stipulated time. Admissions have already been concluded. No case for interference under Article 32 has been made out."

The petitioner in the instant case had relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Prince Jasbir Singh v Union of India & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 6983 of 2021) where the Court had directed IIT Bombay to accommodate a Dalit student who had missed out of the admission deadline due to inability to pay fees in time.

"It is a common practice amongst the aspirants of professional courses like engineering or medical students to secure an admission in an institute that offers a seat to them through other exams but as and when the admission rounds of other competitive entrance examination commences and progresses in due course, the students try to upgrade their choices by securing desired colleges. Even the education that is provided in the State run institutes like VJTI is of higher quality as well as affordable. It is thus following a general trend petitioner had secured a seat in a private institute with an intention to upgrade. Despite the upgradation in securing the seat, the petitioner was denied admission in the Respondent No. 3 Institute," the petition had stated.

Courtroom Exchange

When the matter was called for hearing, Advocate Pai Amit for the petitioner submitted that due to calamity in the family the petitioner had to rush to Udaipur and could not come back on time. He further added that the petitioner had deputed a representative to do the needful.

"The OTP was sent to the candidate's number. He could not be there and had to ask somebody else to put the one time password. But the message could not reach on time," counsel further added.

While expressing the inclination to dismiss the petition, Justice DY Chandrachud, the presiding judge of the bench said, "There are so many other students, if you missed the bus, then you missed the bus, what can we do."

Although the Counsel requested the bench to issue notice on the limited extent in case there is a vacant seat, the bench refused.

"No no we are not going to do that. There will be many other students", the bench said.

Accordingly, the bench while noting that admissions have already been concluded in their order said,

"Admittedly the petitioner failed to upload OTP for confirmation of the admission at the institution within the stipulated time. Admissions have already been concluded. No case for interference under Article 32 has been made out."

The petition was drawn by Advocates Siddharth Chapalgaonkar and Sumit Sonare and Shivali Chaoudhary filed by Advocate Pai Amit.

Case Title: Aaditya Santosh Shrivastava v. State of Maharashtra| WP 98/2022

'You Missed The Bus' : Supreme Court Refuses Relief To Student Who Lost Admission For Not Uploading OTP Within Time

'You Missed The Bus' : Supreme Court Refuses Relief To Student Who Lost Admission For Not Uploading OTP Within Time: The Supreme Court today dismissed a writ petition filed by a student who was aggrieved with the l

PC Act - Mere Acceptance Of Amount, Without Proof Of Bribe Demand, Will Not Establish Offence Under Section 7 : Supreme Court

PC Act - Mere Acceptance Of Amount, Without Proof Of Bribe Demand, Will Not Establish Offence Under Section 7 : Supreme Court: Proof Of Demand & Acceptance Of Bribe By Public Servant Is Sine Quo Non For Establishing Offence U/Section 7 Prevention Of Corruption Act: Supreme Court

ACCIDENT

 

LOCALBODY ELECTION CHENNAI

 

HOSPITAL NEWS