Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Chandrakant Nivrutti Pagar, a Talathi, was convicted by the Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Nashik for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that the complainant, Kailas Bhaskar Khairnar, purchased land and applied for mutation of his name. On 1st March 2000, the appellant demanded Rs.500 for mutation, and the complainant paid Rs.200, with the balance to be paid on 3rd March 2000. The complainant lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau on 3rd March 2000. A trap was laid, and the appellant was caught accepting the remaining Rs.300. The trial court convicted the appellant. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence. The complainant (PW-1) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The panch witness (PW-2) also turned hostile. The investigating officer (PW-4) was the sole witness supporting the prosecution. The court noted that the trap witness (PW-1) was an interested witness and his testimony required corroboration, which was lacking. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The recovery of tainted money alone was insufficient to draw the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act. The court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) - Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to draw presumption under Section 20 if the evidence of demand is unreliable. Held that the trap witness (PW-1) was an interested witness and his testimony lacked corroboration, leading to acquittal (Paras 1-25). B) Evidence Act - Interested Witness - Trap Witness - Credibility - A trap witness is an interested witness whose testimony requires independent corroboration to form the basis of conviction. Held that the evidence of PW-1 was not corroborated by independent panch witness or other circumstances, rendering it unsafe to rely upon (Paras 15-20). C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Rebuttable Presumption - The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act arises only when demand and acceptance are proved; if the evidence of demand is shaky, the presumption cannot be invoked. Held that the prosecution failed to prove demand, and thus the presumption did not assist the prosecution (Paras 21-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable based on the evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 12th January 2007 passed by Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Nashik in Special Case (ACB) No.9 of 2000 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds stand discharged.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act is rebuttable
- demand and acceptance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- trap witness is an interested witness requiring corroboration
- recovery alone insufficient for conviction
