Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ambadas s/o Ramaji Sahare, was convicted by the Special Judge, Wardha in Special Case No.3/1996 for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine for the first offence, and one year rigorous imprisonment and fine for the second, with sentences to run concurrently. The prosecution case was that the appellant, a Talathi, demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.300 from the informant Damodhar Nathuji Dhurve to issue a 7/12 extract. The informant lodged a complaint, and a trap was laid wherein the appellant allegedly accepted the bribe. The trial court convicted the appellant. In appeal, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the complainant was found to be unreliable and not corroborated by independent witnesses. The panch witness turned hostile, and the recovery of tainted money alone was insufficient to draw the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. Consequently, 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), 13(2) - Proof - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. Mere recovery of tainted money from the accused is not sufficient to draw presumption under Section 20 of the Act unless demand and acceptance are first established. (Paras 1-10) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Applicability - The presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be raised only after the prosecution proves the demand and acceptance of bribe. In the absence of such proof, the accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of recovery. (Paras 11-15) C) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Interested Witness - The evidence of a complainant who is an interested witness must be corroborated by independent evidence. In the present case, the complainant's testimony was not reliable and there was no independent corroboration. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.9.2004 passed by the Special Judge, Wardha in Special Case No.3/1996 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The bail bonds of the appellant stand discharged.
Law Points
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act arises only after demand and acceptance are proved
- Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict
