BABJI versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 9 August 2018

1060

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 9 S.C.R.

A

BABJI

v.

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

(Criminal Appeal No. 2159 of 2009)

BAUGUST 9, 2018

[R. BANUMATHI AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.8 – Conviction under– When not sustainable – PW-4 complained that when he hadapproached Indian Airlines Office for reservation of a seat, anCAirlines employee advised him to contact Appellant – Appellant toldhim that though, there was long waiting list but he can arrange aconfirmed ticket and demanded Rs.2,100/- as against the actualfair of Rs. 1646/- – Appellant convicted u/s.8 – Held: Evidenceadduced by the prosecution is vague as to for whom the appellantDdemanded the money and whether the person for whom the appellantdemanded and received the money was a public servant – Thoughthe receiver of the money may not be a public servant, like in thepresent case, the prosecution has to establish that the amount wasreceived for inducing a public servant for doing something in hisofficial capacity – In the absence of evidence to show that theEappellant received money to induce a public servant to get theconfirmation of the ticket, the conviction of the appellant cannotbe sustained and he is acquitted.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988– s.8– Offence under–Factors to be proved– Discussed.F

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 In order to establish the offence under Section8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it must be proved:(i) That the accused accepted or obtained, or agreed to accept,Gor attempted to obtain, from someone; (ii) For himself or for someother person; (iii) Any gratification whatever; (iv) As a motive orreward for inducing by corrupt or illegal means any ‘public servant’to do or forbear to do any official act or to show favour or renderany service to any of the persons specified in the section. [Para5] [1062-D-E]H

1.2 In the present case, the evidence adduced by theprosecution is vague for whom the appellant had demanded themoney and whether the person for whom the appellant demandedand received the money is a public servant. Though the receiverof the money, like in the present case may not be a public servant,the prosecution has to establish by convincing evidence that theamount must have been received for inducing a public servantfor doing something by that public servant in his official capacity.So far as confirmation of the seat in the Indian Airlines, theremay be persons in the middle who may be a public servant or atravel agency or others. In the absence of convincing evidenceto show that the appellant had received the money from PW-4, toinduce a public servant to get the confirmation of the ticket, theconviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. The appellant isacquitted. [Para 6] [1062-G-H; 1063-A-B]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo. 2159 of 2006.

From the Judgment and Order dated 09.09.2005 of the High Courtof Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.421of 2000.

P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Tyagi, Anil Kumar Tandale, Advs. forthe appellant.

P. K. Dey, Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, A. K. Sharma, Mukesh KumarMaroria, Advs. for the respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the conviction underSection 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the appellant has preferredthis appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution is that PW-4 Sumeet Asthanagave Ex.P1-complaint to Vigilance Officer, Indian Airlines, Hyderabad,stating that he had approached the Indian Airlines Office on 20.06.1995for reservation of a seat in Flight I.C. No. 948 for his travel to Madrason 21.06.1995 but there was a long waiting list and that an employee ofthe Indian Airlines, whom he does not know, had told him contact Babji(A-1) of M/s Varun Movies at Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. PW-4 hadapproached A-1 on 01.06.1995 and A1 told him that there was long A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Awaiting list but he can arrange a confirmed ticket and demanded Rs.2,100/-as against the actual fair of Rs. 1646/-. On receipt of the said complaintPW-1, the Manager, Vigilance, Indian Airlines, Hyderabad, gave reportEx.P-2 to the Superintendent of Police, CBI Hyderabad stating that A-1 and A-2 are cheating the public.

B3.Based on the evidence of PW-4 and PW-2 who accompaniedPW-4, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 8 of thePrevention of Corruption Act (for short the ‘Act’) which was confirmedby the High Court.

4. We have heard Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, learned counselCappearing for the appellant as well as Mr. P.K. Dey, learned counselappearing for the CBI.

5. In order to establish the offence under Section 8 of thePrevention of Corruption Act it must be proved:

(i) That the accused accepted or obtained, or agreed to accept,Dor attempted to obtain, from someone;

(ii) For himself or for some other person;

(ii) Any gratification whatever;

(iv) As a motive or reward for inducing by corrupt or illegalEmeans any ‘public servant’ to do or forbear to do any official actor to show favour or render any service to any of the personsspecified in the section.

6. In order to constitute an offence under Section 8 of the Act,three things are essential. In the first place there must have been theFsolicitation or receipt of the gratification. Secondly, such gratificationmust have been asked for or paid as a motive or reward for inducing apublic servant to do an act or do a favour or render some service asstated under Section 8 of the Act. In the present case, the evidenceadduced by the prosecution is vague for whom the appellant haddemanded the money and whether the person for whom the appellantGdemanded and received the money is a public servant. Though thereceiver of the money, like in the present case may not be a publicservant, the prosecution has to establish by convincing evidence that theamount must have been received for inducing a public servant for doingsomething by that public servant in his official capacity. So far asHconfirmation of the seat in the Indian Airlines, there may be persons in BABJI v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH[R. BANUMATHI, J.]

the middle who may be a public servant or a travel agency or others. Inthe absence of convincing evidence to show that the appellant hadreceived the money from PW-4,to induce a public servant to get theconfirmation of the ticket, the conviction of the appellant under Section8 of the PC Act cannot be sustained. In the result the appeal is allowedand the appellant is acquitted.

7. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.

Divya Pandey Appeal allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H