Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Padmakar s/o Warlu Alliwar, was a Gram Sewak/clerk in Grampanchayat, Palasgaon. He was convicted by the trial court in Special Case No.5/1994 for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and one year respectively, with fines. The prosecution case was that the complainant applied for a certified copy of a resolution of Grampanchayat, and the appellant demanded Rs.205/- as bribe on 10.09.1993. A trap was laid, and the appellant was caught accepting the tainted money. The appellant challenged the conviction before the Bombay High Court. The High Court re-appreciated the evidence and found that the complainant's testimony was unreliable and not corroborated by independent witnesses. The panch witness turned hostile. The court held that the demand and acceptance of bribe were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption under Section 20 of the Act was rebutted. 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) and 20 - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to draw presumption under Section 20 when the evidence of the trap witness is unreliable and not corroborated. Held that the conviction was unsustainable as the complainant's evidence was not trustworthy and the panch witness turned hostile. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Act - Trap Witness - Credibility - The evidence of a trap witness, being an interested witness, requires independent corroboration. In the absence of corroboration, conviction cannot be based solely on such testimony. Held that the trial court erred in relying on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant. (Paras 5-8) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal Against Conviction - Appellate Court's Power - The appellate court can re-appreciate evidence and interfere with findings of fact if the trial court's conclusion is perverse or based on no evidence. Held that the trial court's judgment was perverse and liable to be set aside. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable when the evidence of the trap witness is unreliable and the demand and acceptance of bribe are not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court in Special Case No.5/1994 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The bail bonds stand cancelled.
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
- Evidence of trap witness requires corroboration
- Mere recovery of tainted money does not establish demand
