Case Note & Summary
The case involved a complaint against several food inspectors, including the appellant, for demanding illegal gratification. The complainant, who operated a shop selling Kimam, alleged that on January 7, 1984, the accused approached him during an inspection and demanded Rs. 5,000 to avoid difficulties with food sample testing. After initial reluctance, the complainant paid Rs. 600 and later Rs. 500 under pressure. On January 30, 1984, he reported the matter to the Anti Corruption Bureau, leading to a raid where the appellant was apprehended with marked currency notes. The Special Judge convicted the appellant while acquitting the others. The High Court dismissed appeals from both sides, but the Supreme Court found the conviction of the appellant unsustainable due to the lack of corroborative evidence. The court noted that the Panch witnesses did not recognize the accused, and the complainant's testimony was discredited by his admission of wanting to teach the accused a lesson for harassment. The court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to uphold the conviction, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Acquittal of Accused - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 161; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Sections 5(1)(d), 5(2) - The High Court acquitted accused Nos. 1, 3, and 4 based on the lack of corroborative evidence and found it unsafe to convict accused No. 2 solely on the complainant's testimony, which was unsupported by Panch witnesses. The court held that the complainant's motive to teach the accused a lesson undermined the credibility of his claim of being forced to pay a bribe (Paras 272-273).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the accused was sustainable based on the evidence presented.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, and acquitted him.
Law Points
- Corruption
- Illegal gratification
- Acquittal
- Testimony
- Panch witnesses
- Uncorroborated evidence
