mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused under prevention of corruption Act
In our opinion, mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. Moreover, the appellant in his statement under Section 342 has denied the recovery of the mosey and has stated that he had been falsely implicated. The High Court was wrong in holding that the appellant had admitted either the payment of money or recovery of the same as this fact is specifically denied by the appellant in his statement Under Section 342 Cr. PC Thus mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the appellant, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the appellant voluntarily accepted the money. For these reasons, therefore, we are satisfied that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Supreme Court of India
Suraj Mal vs State (Delhi Administration) on 13 February, 1979
Equivalent citations: AIR 1979 SC 1408, 1979 CriLJ 1087, (1979) 4 SCC 725
