TOPIC: Khaleel Ahmed v/s The State of Karnataka

[(2015) 16 SCC 350]

White Collar Crime Take Home Assignment

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Mr. Afkar Ahmed Jai Ram Saran

Principal Faculty B.A. (Hons.) LL.B.

White Collar Crime Semester-IX, Section- B,

NUSRL, Ranchi Roll no. 325

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY AND RESEARCH IN LAW

RANCHI

2013-2018

1
FACTS OF THE CASE:

The appellant was working as a clerk in the Public Works Department, Division Office,
Yadgir. The complainant's house was let out on rent to the Block Development Office for
running a SC & ST Hostel, and the Block Development Officer sent a requisition to the
Public Works Department for estimating the rental value of the house. The file was pending
for approval before the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Office,
Yadgir, therefore the complainant visited the office wherein he met the appellant. The
appellant asked for a bribe of Rs. 3,500/- to get the process completed for estimation of the
rental value of the complainant's house. When the complainant expressed his inability to pay
such a large sum of money, the appellant agreed to accept Rs. 1,500/- in advance and Rs.
2,000/- at a later point in time.

On 26.06.1996 a complaint was filed before the Deputy Superintendant of

Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Gulbarga on the basis of which a case was registered
under section 7 and section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the prevention of corruption
act, 1988. Pre-trap proceedings, including smearing the trap money worth Rs. 1,500/- with
phenolphthalein powder, were completed. Thereafter, the complainant along with panch
witnesses and Lokayukta Police Officers went to the appellant's office. The complainant and
panch witness (PW-7) went inside the office and the complainant handed over the tainted
currency notes to the appellant. At about 3:30 p.m they came out of the office, and on their
signal the trap team entered the appellant's office. The tainted currency notes were found in
the pant pocket of the appellant. The notes, the pant pocket, and the hands of the appellant
were washed in sodium carbonate solution and the solution turned pink.

After the completion of investigation and obtaining of sanction, a charge-sheet was filed
against the appellant.

Thereafter, the appellant appeared before the Trial Court.

ISSUE IN THE CASE:

Whether the appellant is liable under section 7 and section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2)
of the prevention of corruption act, 1988

2
BEFORE TRIAL COURT

In order to substantiate the charges framed against the appellant, the prosecution examined
nine witnesses including the complainant, panch witnesses, and the Deputy Superintendant of
Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, who led the trap team. The prosecution also presented 21
documents and six material objects as evidence. No evidence was led in defense of the
appellant.

The Trial Court held that the evidence of the complainant created fatal doubts in the
prosecution case as the complainant had given two different versions in his examination-in-
chief and cross examination. The complainant stated in his complaint that the appellant had
asked for a bribe of Rs. 1,500/-, while during his examination-in-chief the complainant stated
that the appellant had asked the complainant to purchase Army tickets worth Rs. 1,500/- or
else his work would not get done. However, during his cross-examination the complainant
stated that the sum of Rs. 1,500/- was given to the appellant for the purchase of Army tickets
and that he had filed a complaint before the Lokayukta out of anger, since the appellant had
asked the complainant to come to the office frequently for his work. On that basis, two views
were possible, and hence the benefit of the doubt would go to the appellant. Therefore, the
Trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the ingredients of the offences with
which the appellant was charged beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Trial Court
acquitted the appellant for the offences punishable under section 7 and section 13(1)(d) read
with section 13(2) of the pc act.

The respondent-State herein preferred an appeal before the High Court.

BEFORE HIGH COURT

The learned counsel for the respondent-State would submit before the High Court that the
tainted currency notes of Rs. 1,500/- were found in the pockets of the appellant, and
thereupon a presumption is raised under section 20 of the pc act. Further, the explanation
offered by the appellant that the amount was towards the purchase of Army tickets cannot be
accepted. The Army tickets that were to be sold by the appellant's office had already been
sold. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the respondent-State contended therein that the
appellant had failed to rebut the presumption under section 20 of the prevention of corruption
act, and that there was sufficient evidence on record to hold the appellant guilty of the

3
offences punishable under section 7 and section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the
prevention of corruption act, 1988.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the mere seizure of the tainted currency
notes was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant and more so when the appellant
had provided a proper explanation for the presence of the tainted currency notes.

The High Court has held that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta and
the panch witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution including the statement made
by the complainant regarding demand of illegal gratification by the appellant, the handing
over of the tainted currency notes, the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the
appellant and successful completion of trap proceedings. The High Court has noticed that the
complainant did not support the prosecution case as to the demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification in his testimony. Accordingly, on the basis of the presumption raised
under section 20 of the prevention of corruption act, 1988, the High Court has convicted
the appellant for the offence punishable under section 7 of the prevention of corruption
act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of
Rs. 2,000/-, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Further, the
High Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 13(1)(d)
read with section 13(2) of the prevention of corruption act and has sentenced the appellant
to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,500/-, and in
default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Both sentences were ordered to
run concurrently.

Therefore, against the order of Honble high court the appellant approached the Honble
Supreme court.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT:

Mr. Vijay Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant would assail the judgment and order
passed by the High Court and submit that the prosecution has failed to prove demand of
illegal gratification which is a sine qua non for the offences under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of
the prevention of corruption act, and therefore the order of conviction passed by the High
Court is unsustainable on facts and law. Without prejudice to the above, the learned counsel
would further submit that money shown to have been recovered from the possession of the
appellant was by no means illegal gratification but was towards purchase of Army tickets. In
that view of the matter, it would result in a travesty of justice if the appellant is convicted on

4
the basis of the presumption raised under section 20 of the prevention of corruption act when
a satisfactory explanation has been provided for the possession of the tainted currency notes
shown to be recovered from the appellant. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the appellant
would submit that the appellant must be acquitted for the offences under Sections 7 and
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of corruption act, 1988.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:

Ms. Anitha Shenoy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State would support the
order of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court.

JUDGMENT OF THE CASE:

The Honble Supreme court observed that the demand of illegal gratification is a sin qua non
for the offences under section 7 and section 13(1)(d). And in the absence of proof of demand
of illegal gratification, the offences under section 7 and section 13(1)(d) cannot be made out
and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence Under Section 7 unless it
is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money
knowing it to be a bribe

In the instant case, the complainant has stated that the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.
3,500/- to get the process completed for estimation of the rental value of the complainant's
house. However, in his examination-in-chief the complainant has stated that the appellant
asked him to purchase Army tickets worth Rs. 3,500 otherwise the estimation process would
not get completed.

Further, in his cross-examination the complainant has admitted that he gave the amount of
Rs. 1,500/- to the appellant for purchase of Army tickets, and that he had filed a complaint
under the PC Act against the appellant due to anger at the appellant for asking him to come to
the office frequently for his work. It is, therefore, clear that the complainant has disowned
what he had stated in the initial complaint and has not supported the prosecution case in so
far as the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant is concerned.

In the case of Sujit Biswas v. State Of Assam.1, the Honble Supreme court held that it is a
golden principle of criminal law that the burden of proof required to be discharged by the
prosecution is one of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

1
(2013) 12 SCC 406
5
It must be noted at the outset that Section 20 does not apply to the offence under section
13(1)(d) of the prevention of corruption act. Accordingly, the High Court has erred by
extending Section 20 to the offence under section 13(1)(d) of the prevention of corruption
act.

In our considered view, the appellant has discharged the burden of proof placed on him
based on a preponderance of probability, and in that view of the matter the presumption
raised under Section 20 has been successfully rebutted.

And finally the Supreme court has ordered that the conviction and sentence passed by the
High Court is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable
under section 7 and section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the prevention of corruption
act, 1988.

COMMENTS:
I totally agree by Honble Supreme courts decision that the proof beyond reasonable doubt is
a necessary element of criminal law to convict somebody and in case of illegal gratification
under section 13 of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 also necessary to prove beyond
reasonable doubt and mere recovery of currency notes cant constitute the offence u/s 7 of the
prevention of corruption act, 1988 but Honble high court ignored this principal and held
guilty.