Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sopan s/o Kadu Choudhari, a Police Inspector, was convicted by the Special Judge, Gadchiroli for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that on 5.2.2011, the appellant visited the complainant Shobha Raju Gundawar's house, found excess kerosene stock, and demanded Rs.20,000/- to not register an offence and to file a favourable reply in her anticipatory bail application. On 2.3.2011, after she was released on bail, the appellant again demanded the money. The complainant agreed to pay Rs.10,000/- within 4-5 days. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to one year rigorous imprisonment and fine. The appellant appealed. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the complainant's testimony was unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration. The panch witness turned hostile, and the trap was not properly conducted. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption under Section 20 was rebutted. The appeal was allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The appellant, a Police Inspector, was convicted for demanding and accepting Rs.20,000/- from a kerosene dealer to avoid registering an offence. The High Court held that the complainant's testimony was unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration, and the presumption under Section 20 was rebutted. Conviction set aside. (Paras 1-20) B) Evidence Law - Credibility of Witness - Complainant as Interested Witness - The complainant was an interested witness and her testimony required corroboration. The court found her evidence inconsistent and not supported by independent witnesses, leading to acquittal. (Paras 10-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
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 is rebuttable
- Complainant's testimony must be reliable and corroborated
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
