/2023 INSC 0292/ REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1592 OF 2022 SOUNDARAJAN                     …APPELLANT           v. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF  POLICE  VIGILANCE ANTICORRUPTION  DINDIGUL                                                ...RESPONDENT                                                                                         J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T ABHAY S. OKA, J. FACTS 1. The   appellant   was   convicted   for   the   offences punishable   under   Section   7   and   Section   13(2)   read   with Section   13(1)(d)   of   the   Prevention   of   Corruption   Act,   1988 (for   short,   'the   PC   Act').   The   appellant   was   sentenced   to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. Criminal Appeal No.1592 of 2022 Page 1 of 10 2,000/­.   High   Court,   by   the   impugned   judgment,   has confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant. 2. The appellant was holding the post of Sub­Registrar at Kannivadi, Dindigul District, Tamil Nadu. The complainant M. Sundaramoorthy (PW­2), had purchased land measuring 16.05 cents. Accordingly, on 12 th   July 2004, sale deed was presented   before   the   appellant   who   was   the   Sub­Registrar in   the   concerned   office.   The   complainant   and   his   vendors were   present.       According   to   the   case   made   out   by   the complainant   in   his   complaint,   apart   from   getting   the   sale deed typed on a stamp paper of Rs.880/­, he paid a sum of Rs.190/­ towards the registration charges of the sale deed. A receipt for  the said amount  was issued by  the  appellant. On   16 th   July   2004,   when   the   complainant   visited   the appellant's   office,   he   was   informed   to   bring   FMB   Sketch from   the   concerned   Government   office.   According   to   the complainant,   on   31 st   July   2004,   the   said   sketch   was produced   by   him.   After   the   sketch   was   produced,   the appellant   informed   him   that   he   would   have   to   make   a   site visit.   Accordingly,   the   complainant   arranged   for   transport for   the   appellant   to   enable   him   to   make   a   site   visit.     After noticing   trees   on   the   land,   the   appellant   instructed   the complainant to get a TOPO Sketch from the concerned office Criminal Appeal No.1592 of 2022 Page 2 of 10 to show that the land subject matter of sale was cultivable. Thereafter,   the   complainant   obtained   requisite   documents and   handed   over   the   same   to   the   appellant   on   6 th   August 2004   at   11.30   am.   According   to   the   complainant,   at   that time,   the   appellant   demanded   gratification   of   Rs.500/­   for handing  over the registered sale deed.   As the complainant was not willing to give gratification, on 11 th  August 2004, he filed   a   complaint   with   the   Inspector   of   Police   of   the   Anti­ Corruption Unit. 3. Based on the complaint, a trap was laid on 12 th  August 2004,   which   was   unsuccessful.   According   to   the prosecution   case,   the   trap   was   again   laid   on   13 th   August 2004. It was successful, and in the presence of the shadow witness   Michael   (PW­3),   the   appellant   was   caught   red­ handed while accepting the bribe.   4. The   prosecution   examined   12   witnesses.   PW­1 N.Dhanam   Jeyan   was   examined   to   prove   the   sanction order.   As   stated   earlier,   PW­2   M.Sundaramoorthy   is   the complainant   and   PW­3   Michael   is   the   shadow   witness.   No other   witness   is   relevant   for   proving   the   alleged   demand made   by   the   appellant.   The   complainant   (PW­2)   did   not support   the   prosecution   and   was   declared   as   hostile.   The appellant   examined   two   defence   witnesses,   S.   Kathiresan Criminal Appeal No.1592 of 2022 Page 3 of 10 and   Kalaiselvi   to   bring   on   the   record   audit   report   of   the office   in   which   the   appellant   was   working   and   a   circular issued   by   the   Inspector   General   of   Registration,   which required the Sub­Registrar  to visit a land subject matter of sale deed for ascertaining its valuation.  SUBMISSIONS 5. The   learned   senior   counsel   Mr   S.Nagamuthu, appearing   for   the   appellant,   submitted   that   there   was   no charge framed as regards the demands made on 6th August 2004   and   13 th   August   2004.   Inviting   our   attention   to   the first charge framed by the Special Court, he urged that the charge is about the alleged demand made on 12 th  July 2004 when the sale deed was registered. He submitted that even according   to   the   prosecution   case,   there   was   no   demand made on 12 th  July 2004 at the time of the registration of the sale deed. He submitted that because of this material defect in   the   charge   and   omission   to   frame   a   proper   charge regarding   demand   allegedly   made   on   6 th   August   2004   and 13 th   August   2004,   grave   prejudice   has   been   caused   to   the appellant, who could not defend himself properly. 6. The learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that,   in   any   event,   the   complainant   had   not   supported  the prosecution, and the shadow witness (PW­3) did not depose Criminal Appeal No.1592 of 2022 Page 4 of 10 that   in   his   presence   there   was   any   demand   of   the   sum   of Rs.500/­ by the appellant for returning the sale deed to the complainant.   He   urged   that   the   offence   punishable   under Section   7   was   not   made   out   without   proof   of   demand.   He urged   that   as   no   offence   was   made   out   under   Section   7, even   the   offence   under   clause   (d)   of   sub­section   (1)   of Section 13 was not established.   7. Dr   Joseph   Aristotle,   the   learned   counsel   representing the   State   Government,   submitted   that   in   view   of   Section 464   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   1973   (for   short 'CrPC'),   no   defect   or   omission   in   the   framing   of   charge   is fatal   to   the   prosecution   case   unless   any   prejudice   caused due to the  said omission  or  failure of  justice is established by   the   accused.   He   submitted   that,   in   this   case,   prejudice has not been shown.  8. He   relied   on   this   Court's   decisions   in   the   cases   of Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar 1   and  Union of India v. Ex­ GNR Ajeet Singh 2 . The learned counsel lastly relied upon a decision   of   the   Constitution   Bench   in   the   case   of   Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 3  for submitting that 1 (2011) 9 SCC 272 2 (2013) 4 SCC 186 3 2022 SCC online SC 1724 Criminal Appeal No.1592 of 2022 Page 5 of 10 a   demand   for   gratification   can   be   established   even   on   the basis of circumstantial evidence. FINDING ON PROOF OF DEMAND 9. We have considered the submissions. It is well settled that   for   establishing   the   commission   of   an   offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, proof of demand of gratification and acceptance of the gratification is a   sine qua   non .   Moreover,   the   Constitution   Bench   in   the   case   of Neeraj   Dutta 3   has   reiterated   that   the   presumption   under Section   20   of   the   PC   Act   can   be   invoked   only   on   proof   of facts   in   issue,   namely,   the   demand   of   gratification   by   the accused and the acceptance thereof. 10. As stated earlier, complainant PW­2 has not supported the   prosecution.   He   has   not   said   anything   in   his examination­in­chief   about   the   demand   made   by   the appellant. The public prosecutor cross­examined PW­2. The witness   stated   that   there   was   no   demand   of   a   bribe   made by the appellant. According to him, he filed a complaint as the   return   of   the   sale   deed   was   delayed.   Though   PW­2 accepted   that   he   had   filed   the   complaint,   in   the   cross­ examination,   he   was   not   confronted   with   the   material Criminal Appeal No.1592 of 2022 Page 6 of 10 portions of the complaint in which he had narrated how the alleged   demand   was   made.   The   public   prosecutor   ought   to have   confronted   the   witness   with   his   alleged   prior statements   in   the   complaint   and   proved   that   part   of   the complaint   through   the   concerned   police   officer   who   had reduced   the   complaint   into   writing.   However,   that   was   not done. 11. Now,   we   turn   to   the   evidence   of   the   shadow   witness (PW­3).   In   the   examination­in­chief,   he   stated   that   the appellant   asked   the   PW­2   whether   he   had   brought   the amount.   PW­3   did   not   say   that   the   appellant   made   a specific demand of gratification in his presence to PW­2. To attract Section 7 of the PC Act, the demand for gratification has   to   be   proved   by   the   prosecution   beyond   a   reasonable doubt.   The word used in Section 7, as it existed before 26 th July   2018,   is   'gratification'.   There   has   to   be   a   demand   for gratification.   It   is   not   a   simple   demand   for   money,   but   it has   to   be   a   demand   for   gratification.   If   the   factum   of demand   of   gratification   and   acceptance   thereof   is   proved, then   the   presumption   under   Section   20   can   be   invoked, and the Court can presume that the demand must be as a motive   or   reward   for   doing   any   official   act.   This presumption can be rebutted by the accused. Criminal Appeal No.1592 of 2022 Page 7 of 10 12. There   is   no   circumstantial   evidence   of   demand   for gratification in this case. In the circumstances, the offences punishable   under   Section   7   and   Section   13(2)   read   with Section   13(1)(d)   have   not   been   established.     Unless   both demand   and   acceptance   are   established,   offence   of obtaining   pecuniary   advantage   by   corrupt   means   covered by clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 13(1)(d) cannot be proved. EFFECT OF THE FAILURE TO FRAME A PROPER  CHARGE  13. We   must   deal   with   another   argument   made   by   the learned  senior   counsel   appearing   for  the  appellant.   That   is about   the   failure   to   frame   a   proper   charge   for   the   offence punishable   under   Section   7.   The   relevant   portion   of   the charge reads thus: "You,   working   as   the   Sub   Registrar   at Kannivadi,   Dindigul   District   from 27.10.2003  to   27.10.2003  and  as  such  you are   a  public  servant  you registered  the  sale deed   of   16.05   cents   of   land   purchased   by Sundaramoorthy   on   12.07.2004   and demanded   a   sum   of   Rs.500/­   from Sundaramoorthy  as   gratification  other  than legal   remuneration   for   returning   the registered   document   and   also   received Rs.500/­   as   bribe,   hence   you   disclosed   the offences   punishable   u/s.   7   of   Prevention   of Corruption   Act   1988   and   triable   by   this Court." Criminal Appeal No.1592 of 2022 Page 8 of 10 14. Thus,   the   Special   Court   omitted   to   frame   a   specific charge   on   demand   allegedly   made   by   the   appellant   on   6 th and   13 th   August   2004   and   acceptance   thereof   on   13 th August 2004. 15. Under   Section   464   of   CrPC,   omission   to   frame   a charge   or   any   error   in   charge   is   never   fatal   unless,   in   the opinion   of   the   Court,   a   failure   of   justice   has   in   fact   been occasioned   thereby.   In   this   case,   from   the   perusal   of   the cross­examination of PW­3 and other prosecution witnesses made by the Advocate for the appellant, it is apparent that the   appellant   had   clearly   understood   the   prosecution   case about   the   first   alleged   demand   made   on   6 th   August   2004 and the subsequent alleged demand and acceptance on 13 th August   2004.   There   is   no   doubt   that   this   is   a   case   of omission   to   frame   a   proper   charge,   and   whatever   charge has been framed is,   per se   defective. However, by reason of the said omission or defect, the accused was not prejudiced insofar   as   his   right   to   defend   is   concerned.   Therefore,   in this   case,   the   omission   to   frame   charge   and/or   error   in framing charge is not fatal. 16. We find that, in this case, the charge has been framed very casually. The Trial Courts ought to be very meticulous Criminal Appeal No.1592 of 2022 Page 9 of 10 when   it   comes   to   the   framing   of   charges.   In   a   given   case, any   such error   or  omission  may   lead  to  acquittal  and/or   a long delay in trial due to an order of remand which can be passed under sub­section (2) of Section 464 of CrPC.  Apart from the duty of the Trial Court, even the public prosecutor has   a   duty   to   be   vigilant,   and   if   a   proper   charge   is   not framed,   it   is   his   duty   to   apply   to   the   Court   to   frame   an appropriate charge.  17. The   appeal   is   allowed.   The   impugned   judgments   are quashed and set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of the offences   alleged   against   him.   The   bail   bonds   of   the appellant stand cancelled.  ..……………………J. (Abhay S. Oka) ....……….…………J.    (Rajesh Bindal) New Delhi; April 17, 2023.         Criminal Appeal No.1592 of 2022 Page 10 of 10