NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1779 OF 2010 SHANKARLAL SHARMA . ..Appellant(s) Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ...Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay S.Oka, J. 1. Though the appeal was repeatedly called out, none appeared for the appellant. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Madhya Pradesh, we have gone through the record. 2. The appellant is the accused who was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (For short, the PC Act). The Special Court acquitted the appellant. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has reversed the finding of the Special Court and has converted the order of acquittal into conviction. 1
3. The case of the prosecution is that one Ramsevak (the complainant) had made an application to the Estate officer of M.P. Housing Board for grant of a true copy of a lease agreement. He needed a copy of the lease agreement as he was building a house on the property subject matter of the lease. At the relevant time, the appellant was serving as an Assistant Grade-III in the office of the Estate Officer. The case of the prosecution is that on 7 th October, 2003, the appellant-accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) from the complainant for supply of a copy of the lease. The complainant lodged a complaint on 15 th October, 2003 to the Superintendent of Police. Acting on the basis of the complaint, a trap was laid on 15 th October, 2003 at 2.30 p.m. According to the prosecution case, the trap was successful and the currency notes were recovered from the custody of the appellant- accused. 4. The l earned Special Judge held that both the demand and acceptance were not proved. We find that the complainant did not support the prosecution and he was declared hostile. In paragraph 24 of the impugned judgment, 2
the High Court has noted that no person accompanied the complainant as the surveillance or shadow witness at the time of trap. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent is that though the complainant may not have supported the prosecution, the complaint was proved through a prosecution witness. Secondly, he submitted that the trap was established. He would, therefore, submit that the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act will squarely apply. 5. A Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in a recent decision dated 15 th December, 2022 in Criminal Appeal No.1669 of 2009 ( Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi ) holds that when the complainant does not support the prosecution, the demand made by the accused can be otherwise proved by the prosecution even on the basis of circumstantial evidence. While saying so, the Constitution Bench has reiterated that the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. The Constitution Bench reiterated that mere acceptance or receipt of illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13(d) of the PC Act. 3
The Constitution Bench also held that only when a proper demand is made by a public servant and is accepted by the bribe giver and in turn, the amount tendered by the bribe giver is received by the public servant, it would be an offence under Section 13(1)(d) and in particular Clauses (i) and (ii) thereof. The Constitution Bench reiterated the well settled law that presumption under Section 20 does not apply to Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. 6. Turning to the facts of the case, as noted earlier, the complainant did not support the prosecution and therefore, through the complainant, the prosecution could not establish the demand allegedly made by the appellant. Moreover, even the complaint could not be proved as the complainant did not support the prosecution. Through a witness who was present at the time of giving complaint, the prosecution may have proved the signature of the complainant on the complaint. But obviously, the contents thereof cannot be said to have been proved. As noted by the High Court in paragraph 24, no witness accompanied the complainant at the time of trap. The High Court has not found that there was any circumstantial evidence which could establish the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant. 4
7. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that in the present case, the factum of demand was not established by the prosecution. Hence, the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court dated 6 th March, 2010 is hereby set aside and order of acquittal passed by the Special Court is hereby restored. 8. The bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled. ..........................J. (ABHAY S.OKA) ..........................J. (RAJESH BINDAL) NEW DELHI; February 23, 2023. 5
ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.17 SECTION II-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1779/2010 SHANKARLAL SHARMA Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s) Date : 23-02-2023 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL For Appellant(s) Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, AOR (Not present) For Respondent(s) Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Mishra, A.A.G. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed non- reportable judgment. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (ANITA MALHOTRA) (NAND KISHOR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER (Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file.) 6
ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.17 SECTION II-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1779/2010 SHANKARLAL SHARMA Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s) Date : 22-02-2023 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL For Appellant(s) Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, Adv. Mr. Vedant Bharadwaj, Adv. Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, AOR Mr. Avinash Yadav, Adv. Mrs. Divya, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Saurabh Mishra, A.A.G. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R None appears even after second pass-over. List on 23.02.2023. (INDU MARWAH) (POONAM VAID) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
ITEM NO.103 Court 2 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s).1779/2010 SHANKARLAL SHARMA Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s) Date : 02-09-2020 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT For Appellant(s) Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, Adv. Mr. Vedant Bharadwaj, Adv. Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Veer Vikrant Singh, DAG Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The Court is convened through Video Conferencing. This Court vide order dated 27.08.2019 in Crl.A.No.1669 of 2009 referred the question of law regarding the nature of evidence required to prove conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act when direct evidence of complainant is not available to a five Judges Bench. As the similar question of law arises in the instant case, we direct to list this matter along with Crl.A.No.1669 of 2009. (RAJ RANI NEGI) (SATISH KUMAR YADAV) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR
ÔITEM NO.46 Court No.9 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).5967/2010(From the judgement and order dated 06/03/2010 in CRLA No. 784/2006of The HIGH COURT OF M.P AT GWALIOR)SHANKARLAL SHARMA Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF M.P. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for bail and office report)Date: 13/09/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJARFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. S.K. Dubey, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bhupendra Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Sunny Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Shashank Shekhar Parihar, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (RENUKA SADANA) Court Master Court Master
LITEM NO.13 Court No.9 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).5967/2010(From the judgement and order dated 06/03/2010 in CRLA No. 784/2006of The HIGH COURT OF M.P AT GWALIOR)SHANKARLAL SHARMA Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF M.P. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for bail and office report)Date: 16/08/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJARFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. S.A. Saud, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned Counsel for the State seeks three weeks' time to file his appearance in the matter. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (RENUKA SADANA)Court Master Court Master
ITEM NO.57 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).5967/2010(From the judgement and order dated 06/03/2010 in CRLA No.784/2006 of The HIGH COURT OF M.P AT GWALIOR)SHANKARLAL SHARMA Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF M.P. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T.,bailDate: 02/08/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJARFor Petitioner(s) Dr. Sumant Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Adv. Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice returnable within two weeks. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. Liberty to serve the standing counsel for the State. (Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (J.P. Sharma) Court Master Court Master
CHAMBER MATTER-14 COURT NO.10 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCrl.M.P.8255 of 2010 inPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)...............2010(From the judgment and order dated 06/03/2010 in CRLA No. 784/2006of The HIGH COURT OF M.P. AT GWALIOR)SHANKARLAL SHARMA Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF M.P. Respondent(s)(Appln(s) for exemption from surrendering)Date: 23/04/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY (IN CHAMBERS)For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sumant Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj,Adv. Ms. Archana Pathak, Adv. Mr. Amit Verma, Adv. Mr. Vivekanand Mishra, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Application for exemption from surrendering is dismissed. Four weeks' time is granted to surrender and file proof ofsurrender. (S. Thapar) (Vijay Dhawan) P.S. to Registrar Assistant Registrar
¢ITEM NO.5(MM) COURT NO.2 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCRLMP.NO(s). 8255/2010 inPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)... 2010(From the judgement and order dated 06/03/2010 in CRLA No. 784/2006of The HIGH COURT OF M.P AT GWALIOR)SHANKARLAL SHARMA Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF M.P. Respondent(s)Date: 16/04/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CYRIAC JOSEPHFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Place the matter before the Hon'ble Chamber Judge. (Sheetal Dhingra) (Juginder Kaur) Court Master Court Master