Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mahesh Ramesh Jadhav, was convicted by the Special Judge, Amalner, for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine. The case arose from a complaint by Nivrutti Khairnar, who alleged that the appellant, a public servant, demanded a bribe of Rs. 5,000 to process caste certificate applications for his relatives. A trap was laid, and the appellant was caught accepting the bribe. The trial court convicted him. On appeal, the High Court re-appreciated the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant's testimony was inconsistent, and the panch witness did not fully support the prosecution case. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not be invoked without proof of demand and acceptance. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 20 - Presumption - The prosecution must first prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt before the presumption under Section 20 can be invoked. In the absence of credible evidence of demand and acceptance, the accused is entitled to acquittal. (Paras 10-15) B) Evidence Act - Trap Witness - Corroboration - Testimony of a trap witness requires independent corroboration to form the basis of conviction. The evidence of the complainant and panch witness must be reliable and consistent. (Paras 12-14) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal against Conviction - Section 374 - Appellate court can re-appreciate evidence and interfere with findings if they are perverse or based on no evidence. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in law when the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 arises only after demand and acceptance are proved
- Standard of proof in corruption cases
- Necessity of corroboration to trap witness testimony
