Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, a Forest Section Officer, challenging his conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant was convicted by the trial court and the High Court affirmed the conviction. The case arose from a trap laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau on a complaint by Mukka Ramesh (PW-1), who alleged that the appellant and another forest officer demanded a monthly bribe of Rs.5,000 to avoid booking a case for illegal possession of teakwood. The trap was successful, and the bribe amount was recovered from the appellant's bag. The appellant's defence was that the complainant planted the money due to a grudge over a compounding fee. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution proved demand and acceptance through the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, and the recovery of tainted currency notes. The court noted that the failure to record telephonic conversations or use a recording device did not weaken the case, as the direct evidence was credible. The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act was applied, and the appellant failed to rebut it. The concurrent findings of the courts below were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Proof - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the complainant (PW-1) and the shadow witness (PW-2) testified to the demand and acceptance. The appellant's defence of planting of currency notes was disbelieved. The trial court and High Court concurrently found the evidence credible. Held that the conviction is sustainable (Paras 1-20). B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 20 - Presumption - The presumption under Section 20 arises only after the prosecution proves demand and acceptance. In this case, the prosecution proved both, and the appellant failed to rebut the presumption. Held that the presumption was rightly applied (Paras 15-20). C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Statement of Accused - The appellant's statement under Section 313 that the complainant might have planted the currency notes was a mere conjecture and not supported by evidence. The court rejected this defence as improbable. Held that the statement did not create reasonable doubt (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as affirmed by the High Court.
Law Points
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act arises only after demand and acceptance are proved
- Evidence of complainant and trap witnesses can be relied upon if credible
- Failure to record telephonic conversation or use recording device does not vitiate trap if other evidence is sufficient
