Supreme Court overturns conviction in corruption case due to lack of conspiracy proof: Dashrath Singh Chauhan vs. CBI (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: October 09, 2018. Citation: Not available in the source. Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. and Indu Malhotra, J. Can a public servant be convicted for corruption when the alleged bribe money was accepted by another person and the charge of conspiracy is not proven? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case where a Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU) employee was convicted for corruption, even though the bribe was accepted by his colleague, and the conspiracy charge was not established. The Supreme Court bench of Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Indu Malhotra overturned the conviction, emphasizing that both demand and acceptance of a bribe by the accused are necessary for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre authored the judgment.

Case Background

The case began with a complaint filed by Arun Kumar (PW-1) on March 28, 1995, alleging that Dashrath Singh Chauhan, an Inspector at DESU, demanded a bribe of Rs. 4,000 for installing an electric connection at his factory. The complainant stated that in January 1995, the appellant had told him that the electric connection would not be installed unless he paid the bribe.

On March 29, 1995, a raiding party from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), including Inspector Mr. Kaul (PW-6) and shadow witness Mahinder (PW-2), went to the appellant’s office. The complainant informed the appellant that he had brought the demanded money. However, the appellant instructed the complainant to give the money to another DESU employee, Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar accepted the money, after which the CBI team apprehended him with the bribe money.

This led to the prosecution of both the appellant and Rajinder Kumar under Sections 7, 13(2), and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, along with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for criminal conspiracy.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court (Special Judge, Delhi) acquitted both the appellant and Rajinder Kumar of the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Trial Court also acquitted Rajinder Kumar of all charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, the Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The appellant appealed to the High Court of Delhi, which dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction by the Trial Court. The State did not appeal against the acquittal of Rajinder Kumar or the acquittal of the appellant on the charge of conspiracy.

Legal Framework

The case involves the interpretation of the following legal provisions:

• Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: This section deals with offences related to public servants taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. It states, “Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavor to any person, or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Section 13(1)(d) defines criminal misconduct by a public servant, and Section 13(2) provides the punishment for such misconduct. Section 13(1)(d) states, “A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,—(d) if he,(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest;” Section 13(2) states, “Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than four years but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the punishment for criminal conspiracy. It states, “Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.”

Arguments

The appellant’s counsel, Mr. Rishi Malhotra, argued two main points:

• Firstly, since the Trial Court and the High Court had acquitted both the appellant and Rajinder Kumar of the charge of conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Rajinder Kumar was acquitted of all charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the same benefit should have been extended to the appellant. The counsel contended that once the conspiracy charge failed, the conviction of the appellant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was not sustainable.

• Secondly, the appellant’s conviction was based solely on the evidence of a shadow witness (PW-2), while the evidence of the Investigating Officer, Mr. Kaul (PW-6), was not believed due to his doubtful integrity. The counsel submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of “demand and acceptance” of the bribe by the appellant. Although the demand was allegedly made by the appellant, the acceptance of the bribe was by Rajinder Kumar, not the appellant. The counsel argued that the prosecution had not established that Rajinder Kumar accepted the money on behalf of the appellant.

The respondent (CBI) argued that the reasoning and conclusion of the lower courts were correct, and no interference was warranted.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the main issue before the Court was:

1. Whether the appellant could be convicted under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, when the charge of conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was not proved and the bribe money was accepted by the co-accused, Rajinder Kumar.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Bhagat Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, (1972) 2 SCC 466: The Supreme Court referred to this case to support the proposition that when a charge of conspiracy fails, and a co-accused is acquitted, the charges against the other accused should also fail. The court observed, “Once Rajinder Kumar so also the appellant stood acquitted in respect of the charge of conspiracy and further Rajinder Kumar co-accused was also acquitted from the charges under the PC Act, the charges against the appellant must also necessarily fall on the ground.”
• M.K. Harshan vs. State of Kerala, (1996) 11 SCC 720: The Supreme Court cited this case to emphasize that in order to attract the provisions of Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the prosecution must prove both the “demand and acceptance” of the bribe money by the accused. The court observed, “Since in order to attract the rigors of Sections 7, 13(2) read 13(1)(d) of PC Act, the prosecution was under a legal obligation to prove the twin requirements of “demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused”, the proving of one alone but not the other was not sufficient.”

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the failure of the prosecution to prove the charge of conspiracy and the lack of evidence that the appellant accepted the bribe money. The Court emphasized that both “demand and acceptance” of a bribe are necessary to convict a person under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The acquittal of the co-accused on all charges also weighed heavily in the Court’s decision to acquit the appellant. Additionally, the Court noted that the prosecution’s case was specifically that the appellant conspired with Rajinder Kumar, and not with some unknown person. Therefore, once the conspiracy with Rajinder Kumar failed, the charges against the appellant had to fail.

Key Takeaways

• For a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused.
• If the charge of criminal conspiracy fails, and a co-accused is acquitted, the charges against the other accused should also fail, especially when the conspiracy was specifically alleged with the acquitted co-accused.
• The benefit of acquittal from a conspiracy charge should be extended to all accused when the case is based on a specific conspiracy between the accused persons.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that if the appellant was on bail, he need not surrender.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, both the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused must be proven. The case also clarifies that when a conspiracy charge fails, and a co-accused is acquitted, the charges against the other accused should also fail, especially when the conspiracy was specifically alleged with the acquitted co-accused. This ruling reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dashrath Singh Chauhan vs. Central Bureau of Investigation overturned the appellant’s conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of a bribe by the accused and that the failure of a conspiracy charge, coupled with the acquittal of the co-accused, necessitates the acquittal of the other accused as well. This judgment highlights the importance of proving all elements of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt and ensures that individuals are not convicted based on weak or circumstantial evidence.