Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mohan Bhaiyyalal Shrivastava, was a Sub-Registrar at Barshitakli, Akola. He was convicted by the Special Judge, Akola in Special Case No.4/1998 for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and one year respectively, with fines. The complainant, Keshavrao Ghatage, an agriculturist, alleged that on 15.10.1997, he visited the appellant's office to register a sale deed for land he intended to purchase. The appellant allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs.500 for registering the deed, claiming that permission from the Sub-Divisional Officer was required. The complainant reported the matter to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, and a trap was laid. The appellant was caught accepting the bribe money. The trial court convicted him. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of the trap witness (panch), who had a criminal background and was not independent. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant's explanation that the amount was for legal fees was plausible. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act was rebutted. 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(2) - Credibility of Trap Witness - The appellant, a Sub-Registrar, was convicted for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.500 for registering a sale deed. The High Court held that the trap witness (panch witness) was not independent and his testimony was unreliable. The prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 was rebutted by the appellant's explanation. Conviction set aside. (Paras 1-20) B) Evidence Act - Trap Witness - Credibility - The court observed that the trap witness, who was a panch, had a criminal background and his testimony was not corroborated by independent evidence. The court held that the evidence of such a witness cannot be relied upon without corroboration. (Paras 15-18) C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Rebuttal - The court held that the presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Act is rebuttable. The appellant's explanation that the amount was towards legal fees for stamp duty was plausible and sufficient to rebut the presumption. (Paras 19-20)
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 of the trap witness and the prosecution's case.
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
- credibility of trap witness must be tested
- demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
