Madras HC Acquits Electricity Board Foreman Accused Of Seeking ₹1,000 Bribe For New Connection, Finding Demand Unproved Despite Tainted-Note Recovery

The appellant, a TNEB Foreman, was accused of demanding ₹1,000 from the complainant in connection with a new electricity service connection.

After a trap, marked currency was recovered and the appellant’s hand-wash tested positive for phenolphthalein.

The Special Court convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and imposed concurrent three-year terms of rigorous imprisonment.

He appealed under Section 374(2) CrPC.

The High Court noted disputed evidence concerning the alleged demands, the trap and recovery, and the sanction for prosecution

Whether the prosecution satisfactorily proved a valid sanction for prosecution

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant demanded illegal gratification

Whether acceptance was proved so as to raise the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, and, if raised, whether the appellant rebutted it

Whether the conviction could be sustained

Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as applicable at the time of the alleged offences, proof of demand and voluntary acceptance is essential; recovery of tainted currency, by itself, is insufficient.

The Section 20 presumption arises only after the foundational facts for its application are proved, is rebuttable on a balance of probabilities, and, as the Court stated, applies to Section 7 and Sections 13(1)(a) and (b), but not Section 13(1)(d)

A valid sanction under Section 19 must be granted by the competent authority after consideration of the relevant material and application of mind; Sections 19(3) of the Act and 465 CrPC caution against setting aside proceedings for sanction errors absent a resulting failure of justice.

The Court also relied on Section 114, illustration (g), of the Evidence Act in considering the prosecution’s failure to examine an official witness

The Court found the sanction evidence unsatisfactory, citing the “model sanction order” description, the discrepancy concerning the sanctioning authority’s assistant’s initials, and the unexplained timing of the file’s submission and receipt; however, it did not set aside the proceedings on that ground.

On demand, it found material inconsistencies in the complainant’s account, unresolved contact with an unidentified third-party number during the trap, the non-examination of the second official witness, and conflicting evidence about the test and recovery sequence.

It also considered the prosecution evidence that the official fee had been paid, the pole erected, and the test report processed, which it found inconsistent with the alleged demand to obstruct the connection.

The positive hand-wash and recovery established contact with the notes but did not, without reliable proof of demand and voluntary acceptance, establish the offence.

The Court further held that the trial court had wrongly required the appellant to produce evidence beyond an explanation and had unfairly discounted the defence witness’s evidence for lack of corroboration.

It also found that the appellant had raised a probable defence and that the prosecution had not established the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d).

The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentences were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

Any bail bond was cancelled and any fine paid was ordered to be refunded