Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Smt. Shobha Sonba Raut, was serving as Sub-Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer at Osmanabad. The complainant, Dattatraya Arjun Deshmane, alleged that his land was acquired by the government and he had not received compensation for fruit bearing trees and stone bund. He claimed that the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.39,200/- (5% of the sanctioned compensation) to issue cheques. The complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau, and a trap was laid. The appellant was caught accepting the bribe money. The Special Judge convicted her under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence. The complainant's testimony was found to be contradictory and unreliable. The independent panch witnesses were not truly independent and their evidence did not corroborate the prosecution case. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act could not be invoked as the foundational facts were not established. The court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, giving her the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt - The court examined whether the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused, a public servant. The complainant's testimony was found unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration by independent witnesses. The trap witnesses were not independent and their evidence was inconsistent. Held that mere recovery of tainted currency notes is insufficient to convict; demand and acceptance must be proved. Conviction set aside (Paras 1-20). B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Rebuttable Presumption - The court noted that the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act arises only when demand and acceptance are proved. Since the prosecution failed to prove the foundational facts, the presumption could not be invoked against the accused. Held that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 15-20).
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 based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act is rebuttable
- demand and acceptance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- trap witnesses must be independent and reliable
- recovery alone insufficient for conviction
