Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two criminal appeals filed by Pandurang Raghunath Dhimte (original accused no.1) and Balasaheb Vasant Godse (original accused no.2) challenging their conviction by the trial court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accused no.1, a Block Education Officer, was convicted under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.5,000 from the complainant Krishnarao Nantuji Bodke (PW1) to submit a favourable report in an enquiry. Accused no.2 was convicted under Section 12 of the PC Act for abetment. The prosecution alleged that on 20/07/2000, accused no.1 demanded Rs.5,000 at his residence, and on 27/07/2000, after a trap was laid, the bribe was accepted. The trial court convicted both accused. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence of PW1 and PW2 (shadow witness) and found material inconsistencies and contradictions regarding the demand and acceptance. The court noted that the complainant's version was not corroborated by the shadow witness, and the prosecution failed to prove the demand beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to prove guilt. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the accused were acquitted. The court directed that the bail bonds be cancelled and the fine, if paid, be refunded.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance - Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d), 12 - Proof of demand and acceptance is sine qua non for conviction under the PC Act - The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded and accepted the bribe - In the present case, the evidence of the complainant and shadow witness was inconsistent and unreliable, and the demand was not proved - Held that the conviction cannot be sustained (Paras 1-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted. Bail bonds cancelled. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- Sections 7 and 13(2)
- Mere recovery of tainted money without proof of demand is insufficient
- Benefit of doubt must be given to accused when prosecution evidence is inconsistent.
