Demand and Acceptance of Bribe Not Established – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Prosecution’s Case Collapsed Due to Inconsistent Evidence – Independent Witnesses Declared Hostile – Section 13(i)(d) Read with Section 13(2) and Section 7(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

The Court observed that the existence of reasonable doubt regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe negated the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused were acquitted. (Paras: 11, 12, 15, 16, 17)

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond all reasonable doubt. It noted the inconsistencies in the complainant’s deposition, the lack of credible support from independent witnesses, and the hostile stance of key witnesses.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India (COI)

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 164

• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) – Section 7(2), Section 13(i)(d) Read with Section 13(2)

Subjects: Bribery – Demand – Acceptance – Reasonable Doubt – Independent Witnesses – Trap Proceedings – Presumption – Hostile Witnesses – Evidence – Acquittal

Nature of Litigation: The appeals were filed challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Relief Sought: The accused sought acquittal from the charges of demand and acceptance of bribe on the grounds of lack of credible and consistent evidence.

Reason for Filing the Case: The case originated from a complaint regarding the demand and acceptance of a bribe by an Enforcement Inspector and an Office Assistant for the issuance of a trade license.

Previous Decisions: The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment and fines. The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

Issues:

• Whether the demand and acceptance of the bribe were proved beyond reasonable doubt.

• Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was consistent and credible.

Submissions/Arguments:

a) The defense argued inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements and lack of corroborative evidence. b) The prosecution asserted the validity of the trap proceedings and the positive results of the chemical tests. c) Independent witnesses turned hostile and denied witnessing the actual transaction.