Case Note & Summary
The case involves two appeals against the judgment and order of conviction dated 21.7.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge, Chandrapur in Special ACB Case No.10/2008. The appellant Prabhat Ambhurkar, a public servant working as a Senior Clerk at District T.B. Hospital, Chandrapur, was convicted under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and two years respectively with fines. The appellant Prashant Chatreshwar was convicted under Section 12 of the Act for abetment and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine. The prosecution case was that the complainant, a contractor, had completed work for the hospital and was awaiting payment. The appellant Prabhat allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs.500 to process the bill. The complainant lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau, and a trap was laid. The tainted currency notes were allegedly recovered from the possession of Prabhat. The trial court convicted both appellants. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant's testimony was inconsistent with the panch witnesses, and the independent panch witness turned hostile. The court held that mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to prove the offence. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot be invoked without proof of demand. Regarding the abetment charge against Prashant, the court found no evidence that he abetted the offence. Consequently, the High Court allowed both appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of credible evidence, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot be invoked. The court held that the evidence of the complainant and panch witnesses was inconsistent and unreliable, and the recovery of tainted currency notes alone is insufficient to prove the offence. (Paras 10-15) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Abetment - Section 12 - For conviction under Section 12, the prosecution must prove that the accused abetted the offence under Section 7 or 11. Mere presence or recovery of money is not enough. The court held that there was no evidence that the appellant Prashant Chatreshwar actively participated in the bribe transaction or instigated the main accused. (Paras 16-18) C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - The presumption of corrupt intention under Section 20 arises only when the prosecution proves demand and acceptance of bribe. If the foundational facts are not established, the presumption cannot be applied. The court held that the trial court erred in invoking the presumption without proof of demand. (Paras 19-21)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in law when the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
Both appeals are allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.7.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge, Chandrapur in Special ACB Case No.10/2008 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
Law Points
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act arises only when demand and acceptance are proved
- Abetment under Section 12 requires proof of active participation in bribe transaction
