Uncorroborated Testimony of Interested Witness and Discrepancies in Demand Render Corruption Conviction Unsustainable

The appellant (A1), a Desk Officer in the Ministry of Industry, and A.S.M. Swami (A2), a retired officer, were convicted by the Special Judge, Delhi, for criminal conspiracy (Section 120B IPC) and bribery (Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act)

The prosecution alleged that A1 demanded ₹50,000 (later reduced to ₹30,000) from PW2 to facilitate an export license, and A2 accepted ₹10,000 as part-payment on A1's behalf

A trap was laid on 06.06.1989 where A2 was apprehended with the money, following which A1 was arrested at A2’s residence

A1 appealed the conviction; A2’s appeal abated upon his death

1. Whether there was sufficient reliable evidence to establish the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant

2. Whether the "disclosure statement" made by A2 while in custody was admissible against the appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act

The court primarily applied Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which require proof of demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond reasonable doubt

Under Sections 161 and 162 of the Cr.P.C., police statements cannot be used as substantive evidence except to contradict a witness

Regarding Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the court relied on Pulikuri Kottaya v. King-Emperor and K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which establish that only the portion of a confession that leads "distinctly" to the discovery of a material fact is admissible

Bodh Raj v. State of Jammu and Kashmir was cited to emphasize the "doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events"

The court found the prosecution's evidence regarding the "demand" inconsistent: PW2’s complaint alleged a ₹50,000 demand, whereas his court testimony claimed ₹80,000 reduced to ₹30,000

The court noted procedural lapses, including the FIR being registered before the complaint was lodged and the failure to verify audio recordings through voice samples or forensic analysis

Crucially, PW2 admitted in cross-examination that the money paid to A2 could have been "consultancy charges" for legitimate project revival work

The court held that A2’s statement—that A1 was waiting at his house—did not constitute a "discovery of a fact" under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as a witness or co-accused’s location is not a "material object" in the sense contemplated by law

The trial court’s wholesale marking of Section 161 statements was also cited as a patent illegality

The court allowed the appeal, and acquitted the appellant of all charges under Section 120B IPC and Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act