Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Bhaurao s/o Raghoji Ingole, a retired headmaster, was convicted by the Special Judge, Washim in Special Case No.2/2002 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 three years and five years respectively with fines. The prosecution case was that on 20.6.2001, the complainant Akrosh Devisingh Chavan approached the Anti Corruption Bureau, Akola alleging that the appellant, as headmaster of Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jati Ashram School, demanded Rs.1000/- for issuing a transfer certificate for his niece Sandhya who had passed 10th Std. The complainant claimed that the appellant told him that at the time of admission, an amount of Rs.1000/- was agreed to be paid but was not paid, and he demanded that amount. A trap was laid on 21.6.2001, and the appellant was caught accepting the tainted money. The trial court convicted the appellant. In appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found that the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and not corroborated by the panch witness. The panch witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. The court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The mere recovery of tainted money from the appellant was not sufficient to draw a presumption under Section 20 of the Act. The court held that the conviction was unsustainable and set aside the judgment of the trial court, acquitting the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The appellant, a headmaster, was convicted for demanding and accepting Rs.1000/- for issuing a transfer certificate. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the initial demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the complainant and panch witness was inconsistent and unreliable. The mere recovery of tainted money from the accused is not sufficient to draw a presumption under Section 20 of the Act unless demand and acceptance are proved. The appeal was allowed and the conviction was set aside. (Paras 1-20)
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 the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.8.2005 passed by the Special Judge, Washim in Special Case No.2/2002 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 arises only after demand and acceptance are proved
- Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict
