Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal against the conviction of the appellant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant, a Mandal Revenue Officer, was accused of demanding a bribe from the complainant for the release of essential commodities. The complainant alleged that he was asked to pay Rs.250/- for the release order, leading him to file a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau. A trap was laid, and tainted currency notes were recovered from the appellant. However, during the trial, the complainant retracted his statement and did not support the prosecution's case, claiming the money was for a different purpose. The trial court and the High Court relied on the presumption of demand based on the recovery of the currency notes. The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and concluded that the absence of proof of demand rendered the conviction unsustainable. The court emphasized that mere possession of the currency notes without evidence of a demand for bribe does not constitute an offence under the Act. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentences imposed on the appellant, allowing the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption Offences - Proof of Demand - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) - Conviction cannot be sustained without proof of demand for bribe. The court found that the complainant disowned his complaint and did not support the prosecution's case regarding the demand for bribe, leading to the conclusion that the conviction was not justified. Held that mere possession of tainted currency notes without proof of demand does not establish the offence (Paras 6-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was sustainable in the absence of proof of demand.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentences imposed on the appellant by the trial court and the High Court, allowing the appeal due to lack of evidence proving the demand for bribe.
Law Points
- Demand of illegal gratification
- presumption under Section 20
- proof of acceptance
- absence of evidence
- conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act
