Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sanjay Ramdas Kalmegh, was a Patwari at Pimpri-Deshmukh, Maharashtra. The complainant, Raghunath Tandale, owned agricultural land and alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.500 to correct an error in the 7/12 extract showing less area. The complainant filed a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau, and a trap was laid. The appellant was caught accepting tainted currency notes. The trial court convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sentencing him to imprisonment and fine. The appellant appealed to the High Court. The High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the complainant and the panch witness was inconsistent and lacked corroboration. The court noted that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act arises only after demand and acceptance are proved. Since the prosecution failed to establish these essential ingredients, the conviction was set aside. The appeal was allowed, 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 prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted currency notes is insufficient to draw presumption under Section 20 unless demand and acceptance are established. Held that the trial court erred in convicting the appellant without satisfactory evidence of demand and acceptance (Paras 10-15). B) Evidence Act - Trap Witness - Corroboration - Testimony of a trap witness requires independent corroboration to be relied upon. Held that the evidence of the complainant and panch witness was inconsistent and lacked corroboration, rendering the prosecution case doubtful (Paras 12-14).
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 in law.
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 arises only after demand and acceptance are proved
- Standard of proof in corruption cases
- Necessity of corroboration to trap witness testimony
