Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ramesh Tukaram Waghmare, was a District Social Welfare Officer at Zilla Parishad, Wardha, and was the sanctioning authority for grant-in-aid to a backward class boys hostel. The complainant, Babarao Fuse, was the superintendent of the hostel. On 25.08.1995, a proposal for release of messing grant of Rs.4.50 lakhs was submitted. The complainant alleged that on 30.10.1995, the appellant demanded Rs.10,000/- to sanction the grant, later agreeing to accept Rs.4,000/- initially. The complainant lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau on 09.11.1995. A trap was laid on 10.11.1995, and the appellant was caught accepting Rs.4,000/-. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment. The appellant appealed to the High Court. The High Court found that the complainant was an interested witness and his testimony was not corroborated by independent evidence. The panch witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. The recovery of tainted money was proved, but the demand was not established beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not be invoked without proof of demand. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - The court considered whether the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant was convicted by the trial court for demanding and accepting Rs.4,000/- as bribe for sanctioning grant-in-aid. The High Court held that the evidence of the complainant, being an interested witness, required corroboration, and the panch witness turned hostile. The recovery of tainted money alone was insufficient to prove demand. The appeal was allowed and conviction set aside. (Paras 1-20) B) Evidence Act - Interested Witness - Corroboration - The court examined the credibility of the complainant who was the sole witness to the demand. The court held that the testimony of an interested witness must be scrutinized with care and requires corroboration in material particulars. Since the panch witness did not support the prosecution and no other independent evidence was available, the conviction was unsustainable. (Paras 15-18) C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Rebuttable Presumption - The court discussed that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act is rebuttable and arises only when demand and acceptance are proved. In the absence of reliable evidence of demand, the presumption cannot be invoked against the accused. (Paras 19-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable based on the evidence of a sole interested witness and recovery of tainted money without independent corroboration.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is rebuttable
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Testimony of interested witness requires corroboration
- Recovery of tainted money alone is not sufficient to prove demand
