NDLI: Vinod Kumar Garg Vs. State (government of National Capital Territory of Delhi)

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Prevention of Corruption Act Effect on prosecution case 1988 Procedural lapse Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification ss.7 and 13
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: ss.7 and 13 – Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification – Prosecution case was that the appellant-Inspector, DESU demanded bribe money from PW-2 for providing electricity connection to his shed – On PW-2’s complaint, trap was laid on the fateful day – Currency notes were subjected to chemical treatement – Raiding party along with PW2, PW-3 and PW-5 proceeded to the DESU office – When PW-2 approached appellant, he took him to a garment shop on his scooter and went inside the shop where he asked PW-2 to give the money – PW-2 gave currency notes to appellant in a polythene bag which was put in appellant’s pant pocket as directed by the appellant – PW-3 (panch witness) present in the immediate vicinity gave signal to the raiding party – Inspector (PW-5) in the presence of PW-2 and PW-3 recovered tainted money from the pant pocket of the appellant – Conviction of appellant by courts below – Challenged on the ground that there were major contradictions on material aspect in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses – Held: Minor discrepancy and inability of prosecution witnesses to remember the exact details of whether or not the handwash or pant wash was done would not justify acquittal of the appellant – Deviations between the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 would not mean that the demand and payment of bribe, the trap and seizure of the bribe money was not proved – The contradictions that crept in the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 on the question of the total amount demanded were immaterial and inconsequential as it was proved that the bribe was demanded and taken by the appellant on fateful day – The variations as highlighted would lose significance in view of the proven facts on the recovery of bribe money from the pant pocket of the appellant, on which depositions of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 were identical and not at variance – The money recovered was the currency notes that were treated and noted in the pre- raid proceedings – The contradictions as pointed out were insignificant when juxtaposed with the vivid and eloquent narration of incriminating facts proved and established beyond doubt – Given the time gap of five to six years, minor contradictions on some details were bound to occur and are natural – The witnesses are not required to recollect and narrate the entire version with photographic memory notwithstanding the hiatus and passage of time – Picayune variations do not in any way negate and contradict the main and core incriminatory evidence of the demand of bribe, reason why the bribe was demanded and the actual taking of the bribe that was paid, which are the ingredients of the offence under ss. 7 and 13 of the Act, that have been proved and established beyond reasonable doubt – Documents prepared contemporaneously affirmed the primary and ocular evidence – Therefore, there was no good ground and reason to upset and set aside the findings recorded by the trial court that were upheld by the High Court.Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s.20 – Presumption as to acceptance of illegal gratification – In the case at hand, the condition precedent to drawing a legal presumption that the accused demanded and was paid the bribe money was proved and established by the incriminating material on record – Thus, the presumption under s.20 of the Act was applicable for the offence committed by the appellant under s.7 of the Act – Appellant was found in possession of the bribe money and no reasonable explanation was furnished that may rebut the presumption.Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s.17 – Procedural lapse – Effect on prosecution case – Contention of appellant that investigation was not conducted by the police officer by the rank and status of the Deputy Superintendent of Police or equal, but by Inspector (PW-5) and Inspector (PW-7) – Held: The contention is rejected for the reason that while this lapse would be an irregularity and unless the irregularity has resulted in causing prejudice, the conviction will not be vitiated and bad in law – Appellant did not allege or even argue that any prejudice was caused and suffered because the investigation was conducted by the police officer of the rank of Inspector.Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s.19 – Sanction for prosecution – Appellant challenged the validity of sanction order – Held: There was no error in the sanction order – What the law requires is the application of mind by the Sanctioning authority on the material placed before it to satisfy itself of prima facie case that would constitute the offence – Sanctioning authority in his cross- examination was clear and categoric that he had received the report of the Investigating Officer along with the kalandra of oral and documentary evidence – Sanctioning authority examined and considered the relevant material in the form of oral and documentary evidence that were a part and parcel of the kalandra. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s.19(1) – A mere error, omission or irregularity in sanction is not considered to be fatal unless it has resulted in a failure of justice or has been occasioned thereby – s.19(1) of the Act is matter of procedure and does not go to the root of the jurisdiction and once the cognizance has been taken by the court under the Code, it cannot be said that an invalid police report is the foundation of jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance and for that matter the trial.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 1287
Petitioner	Vinod Kumar Garg
Respondent	State (government Of National Capital Territory Of Delhi)
SCR	[2019] 17 S.C.R. 1134
Judgement Date	2019-11-27
Case Number	1781

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Vinod Kumar Garg Vs. State (government of National Capital Territory of Delhi)

Please Log-in to view this content

Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (govt. of N.c.t. of Delhi)

Phula Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Kootha Perumal Vs. State Tr. Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption

Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab

Satvir Singh Vs. State of Delhi Through Cbi

Mukhtiar Singh (since Deceased) Through His L.r. Vs. State of Punjab

Mrs. Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (govt. of Nct of Delhi)

State of M.p. Vs. Harishankar Bhagwan Pd. Tripathi

Somabhai Gopalbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat

Vinod Kumar Garg Vs. State (government of National Capital Territory of Delhi)

Vinod Kumar Garg Vs. State (government of National Capital Territory of Delhi)

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (govt. of N.c.t. of Delhi)

Phula Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Kootha Perumal Vs. State Tr. Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption

Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab

Satvir Singh Vs. State of Delhi Through Cbi

Mukhtiar Singh (since Deceased) Through His L.r. Vs. State of Punjab

Mrs. Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (govt. of Nct of Delhi)

State of M.p. Vs. Harishankar Bhagwan Pd. Tripathi

Somabhai Gopalbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat

Vinod Kumar Garg Vs. State (government of National Capital Territory of Delhi)