26 April 2024 Corruption >> Criminal Law  

A contractor accused of bribing a government official to process payment for completed work was acquitted on appeal. The court found the prosecution failed to prove the demand for a bribe or that the contractor actually finished the work.

The contractor, identified in the court documents only as the Appellant, was convicted by the trial court for violating the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution's case hinged on the testimony of the complainant (PW1), who alleged the appellant demanded a bribe to approve payment for eight completed projects.

Appeal Challenges Demand and Work Completion

The Appellant appealed the conviction, arguing the prosecution couldn't prove either the demand for a bribe or the completion of the works. The crux of the Appellant's defense was:

• No Justification for Bribe: Since PW1 hadn't completed the work, there was no reason for the appellant to demand a bribe for approving payment.
• Lack of Evidence for Work Completion: PW1 admitted he had no documentation to prove he finished the eight projects.

Court Finds Insufficient Evidence:

The court sided with the Appellant, finding the prosecution's case lacked sufficient evidence. The court specifically noted the following:

• Missing Proof of Work: The prosecution couldn't demonstrate PW1 actually completed the works he claimed entitled him to payment.
• Unreliable Demand Evidence: The only evidence for the bribe demand came from PW1, which the court found insufficient without further corroboration.

Conclusion:

Due to the lack of evidence for both the demand and work completion, the court allowed the appeal and acquitted the Appellant. In reaching this decision, the court applied the legal principle that in criminal cases, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. If there is any reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt, they must be acquitted.

  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988    Indian Evidence Act, 1872