In my current blog, I'll briefly mention a strategy that resulted in the exoneration of my client, the former Executive Director of the Airport Authority of India. It's firmly established in legal precedent that providing evidence of a public servant's demand for illegal gratification and acceptance of a bribe are crucial prerequisites under Section 7 of the PC Act. However, a pivotal issue emerged during the trial: whether the prosecution successfully demonstrated the demand for illegal gratification on the day of the trap proceedings, rather than just a day prior during the verification proceedings.
During cross-examination, we successfully established that the public servant did not reiterate his demand on the day the trap was set and carried out. We emphasized that the alleged offence under Section 7 supposedly occurred on the day of the trap, when the public servant purportedly accepted illegal gratification from the complainant. Therefore, it's crucial for the CBI to substantiate all elements of the Section 7 offense on the day of the trap itself, regardless of whether they were able to prove the demand during earlier verification proceedings.
The basic reasoning behind the aforementioned argument is that if a public servant, despite having demanded a bribe earlier, changes their mind and refuses to accept the bribe, then no offense under Section 7 is committed by them. This holds true even if a complainant, without any specific demand from the public servant on the day of the trap, insists on giving money to the public servant.
However, it's crucial to deploy this strategy right from the beginning of the trial. While this approach carries the risk of acknowledging demand during verification proceedings, it should only be employed in suitable cases where it is genuinely applicable in the facts and circumstances.
Numerous precedents exist that require the CBI to conclusively prove demand on the day of the trap. Those interested can reach out to me, and I will provide comprehensive research conducted by myself and my team on this legal proposition.
Here's the link to the judgement exonerating my client:
Comments