Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ambadas Devram Chavan, was convicted by the Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Pune for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section 7, and rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2). The appellant was working as a Senior Clerk in the Food Distribution Office. The complainant, Pramod Roopchand Solanki (PW-1), alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe for issuing a food distribution license. However, during trial, the complainant turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. He stated that he did not remember the incident and that no demand was made by the appellant. The prosecution relied on the evidence of trap witnesses, including the panch witness and the investigating officer. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant's hostile testimony and lack of independent corroboration led the court to conclude that the conviction was unsustainable. The court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; presumption under Section 20 arises only after such proof. In this case, the complainant turned hostile and there was no independent witness to corroborate the demand, leading to acquittal. (Paras 1-17) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Hostile Witness - Section 7 - Effect of Complainant Turning Hostile - When the complainant turns hostile and does not support the prosecution case, the conviction cannot be sustained solely on the evidence of trap witnesses without corroboration. (Paras 10-17) C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Trap Witness - Credibility - Section 13(1)(d) - The evidence of trap witnesses must be scrutinized carefully; in the absence of independent corroboration and when the complainant disowns the demand, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. (Paras 10-17)
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 when the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 arises only after demand and acceptance are proved
- Burden of proof on prosecution to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt
- Acquittal if prosecution fails to prove demand and acceptance
