Proof of demand and acceptance sustains a Section 13(1)(d) conviction despite acquittal under Section 7.

The appellant, a Customs Havildar at Calicut International Airport, was accused of demanding and accepting 150 UAE Dirhams from passenger PW4 to release a used LED television brought from Sharjah.

The Special Court acquitted him of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but convicted him under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) and sentenced him to four years’ simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000.

The appellant challenged the conviction, disputing the complainant’s evidence, the recovery of the currency, and the identification evidence; he also argued that acquittal under Section 7 was inconsistent with conviction under Section 13(1)(d).

Whether the prosecution proved that the appellant committed an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act

Whether the Special Court’s judgment and sentence required interference in light of the challenges to the evidence and the appellant’s acquittal under Section 7

Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act were considered.

Under Neeraj Dutta v. State, proof of demand and acceptance or obtainment of illegal gratification is essential to establish the relevant offences; those facts may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, and a court may draw a discretionary inference from proved foundational facts.

Section 20’s mandatory presumption applies to Section 7, but not to Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii).

Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, information leading to discovery may be proved when given in police custody, which includes custodial surveillance or restraint and is not limited to formal arrest; the Court relied on Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of U.P. and Rohit Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh.

The Court accepted PW4’s consistent testimony that the appellant demanded 250 Dirhams, accepted the 150 Dirhams PW4 had, and released the television without issuing a receipt.

It found the recovery of the same currency pursuant to the appellant’s disclosure reliable, supported by the investigating officer and other witnesses; PW2’s inconsistent, hostile evidence did not establish that recovery occurred before the appellant was in custody.

The Court also held that the discrepancy about whether the appellant was in uniform or civilian clothes at identification did not undermine PW4’s identification, given their interaction at the airport and the supporting evidence.

It concluded that demand and acceptance were proved and that the Special Court’s acquittal under Section 7 rested on an erroneous view of the evidence; however, no prosecution appeal had been filed against that acquittal. The error did not displace the separately established offence under Section 13(1)(d).

Finding no reason to interfere with the sentence, it dismissed the appeal, vacated the suspension of sentence and bail order, and directed the appellant to appear before the Special Court to serve the sentence; failing that, the Special Court was directed to execute it.