Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and its difficulty

Prevention of Corruption Act was enacted to prevent corruption. But its misuse and preventive interpretation has created many difficulties. Courts has to look in every aspect whether the person has actually done an offece under the said Act or it is mere an act to trouble him. the very first question comes in my mind is if i have not asked money and the work has been done promptly by me(if there is no legal bar) how can i be booked for the same? the same attempt was made in the matter of C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. Th. I.P. decided on 25/11/2010 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. in this case the appellant(who was posted as Deputy Chief Engineer, Railway Electrification, South Central Railway, Vijaywada.) was arrested and sentenced for taking illegal money from one Venka Reddy (hereinafter referred to as the `contractor'). During the years 1992-1994contractor,was awarded the contracts of railway electrification between railway stations Bhongir and Sanathnagar and Maulali and Sanathnagar bypass under agreement No. 29 dated 3.4.1992 and agreement No. 41 dated 20.11.1992 respectively. Further by agreement No. 3 dated 18th October, 1994 work to provide height gauges at railway crossing between Vijayawada and Gannavaran was awarded to him. The contractor completed the works to the satisfaction of the railway authorities and in respect of the works covered by aforesaid agreement nos. 29 and 41 he received the payment. The contractor also completed the work covered under agreement No. 3 dated 18.10.1994 aforesaid in the month of March, 1995. The appellant was the competent authority to pass the bills and accordingly the contractor met him on 19.4.1995 and requested to finalise the bill. The appellant denied to issue and demanded Rs. 3,000/- as illegal gratification. The contractor expressed his inability to pay the illegal gratification but the appellant insisted and asked him to bring the money on 20th April, 1995.He then met the officials of the Central Bureau of Investigation and gave a written report. Being satisfied with the bonafide of the allegation, a pre-trap exercise was undertaken on the instruction of office Superintendent.The contractor alongwith the shadow-witness to the office of the appellant. The witness was asked to leave the chamber and he went out. Thereafter appellant demanded the money and the contractor handed over the tainted money to him, which he received from his right hand and kept in right side pocket of the trouser. A signal was given, whereupon the Inspector along with his team entered in the chamber, apprehended the appellant and conducted sodium carbonate test on the fingers of both the hands and right trouser pocket of the appellant, which turned pink. The tainted notes were lying on the floor of the office, which were recovered. After usual investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted the charge-sheet and the appellant was put on trial, where he abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure made a plea of false implication of him due to enmity with the contractor. The same was rejected by the trial court and accordingly the appellant was convicted and sentenced , which was further affirmed in appeal by the High Court. The same plea was also made by the accused before Supreme Court that he has been falsely implicated as there being strained relationship between the appellant and the contractor it is highly improbable that he would demand the illegal gratification from him.it was stated that In the case of Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra, 1987 Supp. SCC 266 this court held that “26. Therefore, the very foundation of the prosecution case is shaken to a great extent. The question as to the handing over of any bribe and recovery of the same from the accused should be considered along with other material circumstances one of which is the question whether any demand was at all made by the appellant for the bribe. When it is found that no such demand was made by the accused and the prosecution has given a false story in that regard, the court will view the allegation of payment of the bribe to and recovery of the same from the accused with suspicion." Further in the case of Panalal Damodar Rathi vs. State of Maharasthra, (1979) 4 SCC 526 and which attention has been drawn to paragraph 9 thereof which reads as follows: "9. It will be seen that the version of the complainant that the appellant asked the complainant whether he had brought the money and that the complainant told him that he had and that the appellant asked him to pay the money to the second accused is not spoken to by the panch witness PW 3. According to panch witness on the complainant asking the appellant whether his work will be achieved, the appellant assured him in the affirmative and the appellant told the complainant what was to be given to the second accused. It is significant that PW 3 does not mention about the appellant asking the complainant whether he had brought the money and on the complainant replying in the affirmative asking the complainant to pay the money to the second accused. Omission by PW 3 to refer to any mention of money by the appellant would show that there is no corroboration of testimony of the complainant regarding the demand for the money by the appellant. On this crucial aspect, therefore, it has to be found that the version of the complainant is not corroborated and, therefore, the evidence of the complainant on this aspect cannot be relied on." Another decision on which reliance is placed is the decision of this Court in the case of Meena (Smt) W/O Balwant Hemke v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 5 SCC 21 in which it held as follows: "The corroboration essential in a case like this for what actually transpired at the time of the alleged occurrence and acceptance of bribe is very much wanting in this case. Even the other panch witness, PW 5 categorically admitted that even as the Inspector of Police, PW 6 arrived, the appellant gave the same version that PW 1 tried to force into her hands the currency note which she turned down by pushing it away, and his evidence also does not lend credibility to the case of the prosecution. The contradictory version of PW 1 of the very incident when earlier examined in departmental proceedings renders his testimony in this case untrustworthy. PW 3, the Head Copyist, seems to be the brain behind all this and that PW 1 as well as Jagdish Bokade appear to be working as a group in this affair and despite the blunt denial by PW 3, his closeness to PW 1 and Jagdish Bokade stands well substantiated. All these relevant aspects of the case seem to have been completely overlooked by the courts below."Reference was also made to a decision of this Court in the case of Dalpat Singh and another v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1969 SC 17, in which it has been held as follows: "We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that PWs 1,2,3,4 and 17 and other prosecution witnesses to whose evidence we shall presently refer, should be considered as accomplices and therefore their evidence is required to be corroborated in material particulars before being accepted. On the proved facts, even those who gave illegal gratification to the appellants cannot be considered as accomplices as the same was extorted from them. Though PWs 1,2,4 and 17 can be considered as interested witnesses as regards their evidence relating to trap, as a matter of law, it is not correct to say that their evidence cannot be accepted without corroboration, see State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh 1959 SCR 195 = (AIR 1958 SC500) . In the present case after considering all the relevant submission made by the respected counsels of the parties the Court held that “We do not have the slightest hesitation in accepting the broad submission of Mr. Rai that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the offence under the Act. Further mere recovery of currency notes itself does not constitute the offence under the Act, unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe. In the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that both the ingredients to bring the act within the mischief of Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act are satisfied. From the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution it is evident that the appellant demanded the money from the contractor as he had passed his bills. There is further evidence that when the contractor went along with the shadow-witness on the date told by the appellant for payment of the bribe, appellant asked the shadow-witness to leave the chamber and thereafter the demand for payment of illegal gratification was made and paid. The positive sodium carbonate test vis-`-vis the fingers and right trousers pocket of the appellant go to show that he voluntarily accepted the bribe. Thus there is evidence of demand of illegal gratification and the voluntary acceptance thereof.” According Court dismisses the appeal and upheld the order of trail court and the High Court.