A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court, in Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 2845 of 2024), addressed the prosecution’s failure to substantiate charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant, a Forest Section Officer, faced allegations of demanding and accepting bribes. The Court emphasized the prosecution’s duty to establish the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification with clear, direct, or reliable circumstantial evidence. It acquitted the appellant due to inconsistencies in testimonies, procedural lapses, and reliance on interested witnesses. This judgment underscores the critical role of unimpeachable evidence in corruption trials.

Keywords: Prevention of Corruption Act, illegal gratification, demand and acceptance, trap proceedings, circumstantial evidenceB) CASE DETAILS

• Judgment Cause Title: Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
• Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2845 of 2024
• Judgment Date: 10 July 2024
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Quorum: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
• Author: Justice Sandeep Mehta
• Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 640; 2024 INSC 503
• Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Judgments Overruled: None explicitly mentioned
• Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Anti-Corruption Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for demanding and accepting a bribe from the complainant, who operated a sawmill. The High Court upheld this conviction, while acquitting the co-accused. The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of evidentiary gaps and procedural deficiencies. The case required the Court to revisit principles governing proof of bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The appellant, a Forest Section Officer, conducted an inspection at the complainant’s sawmill, imposing a compounding fine of ₹50,000 for illegal teakwood possession.
2. The appellant allegedly demanded a monthly bribe of ₹5,000 from the complainant to prevent further legal action.
3. The complainant filed a corruption complaint, leading to a trap operation. During the trap, the appellant purportedly accepted the bribe.
4. The trial court convicted the appellant based on testimony from the complainant, shadow witnesses, and forensic evidence of tainted notes.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond doubt the appellant’s demand for illegal gratification.
2. Whether circumstantial and direct evidence sufficed to establish the appellant’s acceptance of the bribe.
3. Whether procedural lapses during the trap operation invalidated the prosecution’s case.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The appellant denied the bribery allegations and argued that the complaint was motivated by malice over prior official actions.
2. The complainant and a shadow witness were close associates, making their testimony unreliable.
3. The prosecution failed to produce independent witnesses to corroborate the bribe demand or acceptance.
4. The DySP orchestrated the trap without preliminary verification of the complaint.
5. Call detail records disproved the complainant’s claims of consistent bribe demands.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The prosecution maintained that the appellant’s actions and the presence of tainted currency corroborated bribery.
2. Phenolphthalein tests confirmed contact with the tainted notes, establishing acceptance of illegal gratification.
3. Procedural irregularities, if any, did not undermine the substantive evidence against the appellant.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
   • Section 7: Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration.
   • Section 13(1)(d): Criminal misconduct by a public servant.
   • Section 13(2): Punishment for criminal misconduct.
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
   • Section 313: Examination of the accused.

I) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. The Court held that proof of bribe demand is a sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. The evidence, including the complainant’s testimony, lacked credibility due to inconsistencies and procedural flaws.
3. The call detail records contradicted the complainant’s allegations of regular demands.
4. The absence of independent witnesses to corroborate critical aspects of the trap weakened the prosecution’s case.

b. Obiter Dicta

1. Investigative officers must verify allegations of bribery before arranging trap operations.
2. Reliance on interested witnesses without corroboration undermines the integrity of corruption trials.

c. Guidelines

1. Trap operations must include independent witnesses to ensure transparency.
2. Preliminary verification of bribery allegations is essential to avoid orchestrated complaints.
3. Evidentiary gaps in procedural compliance cannot be ignored in anti-corruption cases.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment emphasizes that procedural rigor and unimpeachable evidence are essential in corruption cases. Reliance on interested witnesses and circumstantial gaps invite judicial skepticism.

K) REFERENCES

1. Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) [2023] 2 SCR 997; (2023) 4 SCC 731.
2. Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.