Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal against a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant, a Surveyor in the Mandal Revenue Office, was accused of demanding a bribe from a complainant, P.W.2, who had purchased land with casurina trees. The complainant alleged that the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) demanded Rs.5,000 for allowing the removal of the trees, and the appellant intervened, reducing the demand to Rs.2,000. A trap was set, and the appellant was allegedly caught accepting the bribe. The trial court acquitted the appellant, finding the evidence unreliable and the trap proceedings flawed. The High Court reversed this decision, relying on the recovery of tainted money from the appellant. The appellant contended that the High Court erred in interfering with the trial court's well-reasoned judgment. The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and procedural irregularities, noting the lack of direct evidence of demand and the questionable conduct of the prosecution witnesses. The court emphasized that the presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Act could not apply without proof of demand. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and upheld the acquittal of the appellant, discharging him from bail bonds.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Demand for Bribe - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 20 - The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand for bribe made by the appellant, leading to the conclusion that the presumption under Section 20 could not be applied. The evidence presented was deemed unreliable, and the circumstances surrounding the trap were questioned, resulting in the acquittal of the appellant. Held that the prosecution's case was not substantiated (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved the demand for bribe and the appellant's involvement in the alleged corruption.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and upheld the acquittal of the appellant, discharging him from bail bonds.
Law Points
- Presumption of innocence
- Demand for bribe
- Corruption
- Evidence evaluation
- Acquittal standards
