Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, Single Bench of Justice Pankaj Purohit, allowed a criminal appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, which are essential elements for sustaining a conviction under the said provisions.

The appellant, who was serving as Principal of Government P.G. College, Dwarahat, Almora, had been convicted by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act)/1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in Sessions Trial No. 5 of 2011. The conviction carried five years of simple imprisonment with fines under both Section 7 and Section 13(2), ordered to run concurrently. The trial court had passed its judgment on 13 April 2017.

Also Read: Supreme Court Sets Aside Kerala High Court Decision on Forest Tender Cancellation, Citing Fair Play, Public Interest, and Financial Prudence: No Evidence of Mala Fides or Arbitrariness Found

According to the prosecution, a complaint was submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Haldwani by a contractual steno working through UPNL at Government P.G. College, Dwarahat. The complainant alleged that the college principal demanded either a mobile phone or Rs. 10,000/- to allow her to continue in the job.

On the basis of this complaint, a preliminary inquiry was initiated by Inspector Harak Singh Firmal (PW-1), who concluded that a trap could be laid. The vigilance team, along with the complainant and two independent government witnesses—Puran Singh Supyal (PW-3), Revenue Inspector, and Kundan Bisht, Patwari—conducted a mock trial. Currency notes smeared with Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate were prepared for the trap.

On 11 March 2011, the trap team reached the area near the principal’s office. The complainant was directed to hand over the prepared currency notes to the accused. The appellant was caught counting the currency notes at around 10:50 am. The tainted notes were recovered, and his hands were washed, which turned the water pink. Samples of the pink liquid were sealed.

The charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were framed on 13 July 2012. The accused pleaded not guilty.

The prosecution examined seven witnesses: PW-1 Inspector Harak Singh Firmal, PW-2 S.P. Anand Singh Gussain, PW-3 Revenue Inspector Pooran Singh Supyal, PW-4 Retired S.P. R.P. Sharma, PW-5 Complainant Chandra Chauhan, PW-6 Inspector Devendra Singh Digari, and PW-7 Manisha Panwar, then Principal Secretary to the Uttarakhand Government.

PW-1 supported the prosecution's version, affirming the trap details and noting that the appellant was caught red-handed. He confirmed the use of Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate and stated that the FSL report verified their presence on the accused's hands.

PW-2 also confirmed the same sequence of events and findings, including the pink color appearing on hand wash due to the chemicals.

PW-3, an independent witness nominated by the SDM, testified that he was part of the trap team. He confirmed the sequence of handing over prepared currency notes, mock testing, and catching the accused red-handed while counting the notes.

PW-4, then S.P. Vigilance, stated that he authorised the trap after conducting preliminary inquiry. He verified his signatures on documents related to the operation.

PW-5, the complainant, stated that she was humiliated and mistreated by the principal. She added that the complaint was written under the direction of the Vigilance Inspector and that she had placed the tainted currency notes in the drawer of the accused's chamber in his absence. She further testified that the principal never demanded any bribe from her. Her hands turned pink during testing, but she was declared hostile by the prosecution.

PW-6 and PW-7 also supported the prosecution's case. PW-7 confirmed the grant of prosecution sanction after examining the entire trap operation file.

In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all allegations. He stated that the complainant had a history of carelessness and absenteeism, and that she entered his chamber on the incident date along with vigilance officials and forcibly took him to Ranikhet. He produced DW1 Jagat Singh, the driver of the official vehicle, in his defense.

The court examined the evidentiary value of the prosecution's key witness, PW-5, and found that she clearly denied any demand of bribe by the accused. It was specifically noted:

"She nowhere stated that there was any demand for money as bribe instead it has been clearly stated by her that there was no demand for any sort of illegal gratification which is the most essential ingredients for conviction for an offence under Section 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act."

The court further recorded: "She herself deposed that the whole complaint was written under the direction of the Vigilance Inspector and also stated that she did not handed over the money to Principal but planted it in his drawer in his absence."

It was also acknowledged that in her cross-examination, PW-5 explicitly denied any demand from the accused: "Further in her cross examination she has clearly stated that it will be wrong to say that principal demanded illegal gratification."

Citing paragraph 88 of the Supreme Court judgment in Neeraj Dutta vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731, the High Court reiterated the principle that: "Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act."

The court added: "In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact."

Addressing the procedural gaps, the court observed multiple inconsistencies and deficiencies:

• "Unexplained delay in sending the sample to FSL."

• "Non washing of hands of PW-1 and PW-2 who handled the money."

• "Hand wash of the victim not turning pink but milky white."

• "Non presence of independent witnesses at the scene."

In light of these deficiencies and the hostile testimony of the complainant, the court concluded: "There is nothing on record to prove the guilt of the appellant to the hilt and beyond all reasonable doubts."

Also Read: "Custody Of Minor Child With Mother Presumed Lawful Unless Exception Proved": Bombay High Court Dismisses Father's Habeas Corpus Plea, Directs Resort To Guardians And Wards Act

The court, finding material contradictions and lack of proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of the bribe, issued the following directive: "The present appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 13.04.2017 passed by Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act/1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital is hereby set aside."

The court further directed: "The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His sureties discharge forthwith." "Let the TCR be immediately sent back to Trial Court for consignment."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellant: Mr. Arvind Vashishtha, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Sarang Dhulia and Mr. B.K. Mishra, Advocates

For the Respondent: Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA

Case Title: Hari Ram Tiruwa vs. State of Uttarakhand

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2017

Bench: Justice Pankaj Purohit

[Read/Download order]