HC Acquits Former Civil Judge in Corruption Case; No Proof of Demand:

HC Acquits Former Civil Judge in Corruption Case; No Proof of Demand The appellant, Premjibhai Hirabhai Gohil, was serving as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC at Pardi, Valsad, in 2002. The prosecution alleged that he demanded a bribe of Rs. 2,000 from a government food inspector in exchange for showing leniency in pending cases under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Acting on the complaint, the ACB laid a trap and recovered anthracene powder-treated currency notes from the appellant’s residence. The Trial Court, by judgement dated 2011, convicted the appellant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment. Challenging the conviction, the appellant contended that no demand was ever made and that the case was motivated by professional hostility, pointing out that coercive steps had earlier been taken against the complainant in pending proceedings.

Also Read

Cash Deposits from Business Sales Cannot Be Taxed as Unexplained: ITAT

Issue Before Court: Whether a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act can be sustained merely on the recovery of tainted money in the absence of clear and consistent proof of demand for illegal gratification. HC Decided: The Gujarat High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction. The Court reiterated that proof of demand is the foundation of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, the Court found material inconsistencies in the complainant’s version regarding the timing and manner of the alleged demand. The prosecution failed to present cogent and reliable evidence to establish that any demand was made by the appellant.

Also Read

Income Tax Reassessment Cancelled Due to Late Notice

The Court also noted that the manner of recovery did not conclusively rule out the defence plea of false implication. Relying on settled Supreme Court law, including B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., the Court held that mere recovery of currency notes, without proof of prior demand, is insufficient to sustain a conviction. In the absence of this essential ingredient, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The conviction was accordingly quashed and the appellant acquitted. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below