Apply section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, of India, as substituted with effect from…
The alleged demand must be proved to establish the particular demand-based obtaining case posed here. It may be established through reliable circumstantial evidence even…
Choose your answer
Apply section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, of India, as substituted with effect from 26 July 2018 and applicable on 29 January 2023. The specific prosecution theory to be examined is that P1 obtained the undue advantage through the alleged demand for granting the gun license. The issue is proof of that alleged demand-based obtaining charge, rather than whether a separate acceptance theory without a prior demand could constitute an offence under section 7. P1, a public servant demands from V1 Rs 50,000/ as bribe for granting a gun license. V1 complains to the anti corruption bureau [ACB]. ACB makes all arrangements to trap P1 and catches P1 red handed taking a bribe amount of Rs 50,000/ from V1. At the time of trial V1 refused to support the prosecution and was declared hostile. There is no other witness to support the demand of bribe though there are witnesses to support the acceptance of the bribe amount. Consider the following statements about proof of the alleged demand for this prosecution theory:
1. The proof of demand is not essential
2. The proof of demand is essential
3. The demand can be proved only by direct evidence and not by circumstantial evidence
4. The demand can be proved by circumstantial evidences even if there is no direct evidence
Which alternative identifies the complete set of correct statements among 1, 2, 3 and 4 for the specific issue posed?
Answer and explanation
Correct answer D
The alleged demand must be proved to establish the particular demand-based obtaining case posed here. It may be established through reliable circumstantial evidence even when the complainant turns hostile, so direct testimony is not the sole permissible method.
Why not "1 only"? The question expressly confines the prosecution case to obtaining the payment through the alleged demand. Treating proof of that demand as unnecessary would leave the particular allegation unproved. A distinct acceptance case may raise a different issue, but it is expressly outside the question posed.
Why not "2 only"? The proposition requiring proof of the alleged demand is correct within this specified prosecution theory. It is incomplete as the answer because the proposition permitting circumstantial proof is also correct. A hostile complainant does not make direct testimony the exclusive or indispensable evidential route.
Why not "2 and 3"? This combination correctly requires proof of the alleged demand but wrongly excludes circumstantial evidence. The fact that the complainant refuses to support the prosecution does not create such an exclusion. Reliable surrounding evidence may establish the demand, although recovery of money alone does not automatically prove it.
Practice for these exams
-
Jammu & Kashmir Prosecuting Officer