[Prevention Of Corruption Act] Ability Of Accused To Influence Bribe Giver More Important Than His Competency To Do Favour: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that for conviction of an accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the major test is the ability of accused to induce the bribe giver to give illegal gratification by making demand and the impression in the mind of the bribe giver; not the competency of the accused to do a favour.Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia observed,"...whether the accused...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that for conviction of an accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the major test is the ability of accused to induce the bribe giver to give illegal gratification by making demand and the impression in the mind of the bribe giver; not the competency of the accused to do a favour.
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."
The appellant, Gopal Shivhare, a Public Relation Officer in the M.P. Tourism Department, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 1 lakh, to influence a departmental inquiry.
The appellant challenged the trial court's judgment on two primary grounds, (i) that the sanction for prosecution was not granted after due application of mind and (ii) as a presenting officer with no authority to close or drop the departmental inquiry, Appellant argued there was no reason for him to demand or accept a bribe.
The prosecution presented a witness who identified the signatures of the sanctioning authority and produced the original file for sanction. The defense did not cross-examine this witness in detail regarding the contents of the original file. The Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Bhooraji (2001) emphasized that errors or irregularities in the sanction do not automatically invalidate the proceedings unless they result in a failure of justice. Similarly, in Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of A.P. (1979), the Court held that the prosecution must prove the sanctioning authority's satisfaction with the case facts either by producing the original sanction order or by independent evidence showing the material placed before the authority.
The state's counsel argued that the competency of the accused to pass a favorable order is not necessary; the impression in the bribe-giver's mind is crucial. If the complainant believed the appellant could influence the inquiry, it justified the demand for a bribe.
Section 20 of the Act presumes guilt when a public servant is found in possession of tainted money unless the accused can prove their innocence. In this case, the tainted money was seized from the appellant, placing the burden of proof on him to demonstrate his innocence.
The High Court upheld the trial court's conviction, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments. The court reiterated that minor irregularities or technicalities in the sanctioning process do not constitute grounds for overturning a conviction unless they cause a failure of justice. The court agreed with the state's argument that the impression of the accused's influence on the inquiry, rather than actual competency, was sufficient to establish the motive for the bribe demand.
Case title: Gopal Shivhare Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 173
Citation: Cr.A. No.5460/201