Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sayaji Dashrath Kawade, was serving as Sub-Divisional Engineer in the Department of Telecommunications at Aurangabad. The complainant, Devidas Mohite (PW-1), applied for installation of an STD/PCO booth. One Anil Agrawal, an STD machine dealer, informed the complainant that he needed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the appellant for installation. The complainant lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), and a trap was laid on the next day. The appellant was caught accepting Rs.2,000/- from the complainant, and the currency notes were found with anthracene powder. The appellant was charged under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Judge convicted the appellant, leading to this appeal. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and lacked corroboration. The panch witness turned hostile, and the material witness Anil Agrawal was not examined. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction was 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) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The appellant, a Sub-Divisional Engineer, was convicted for demanding and accepting Rs.2,000/- for installation of STD/PCO booth. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove demand beyond reasonable doubt as the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and uncorroborated, and the material witness Anil Agrawal was not examined. The appeal was allowed and conviction set aside. (Paras 1-24) B) Evidence Act - Corroboration of Complainant's Testimony - Section 134 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - In trap cases, the testimony of the complainant must be corroborated by independent witnesses. The court found that the panch witness turned hostile and the complainant's version was not reliable, leading to acquittal. (Paras 15-20) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal Against Conviction - Section 374 CrPC - The appellant appealed against conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1-24)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant for installation of STD/PCO booth.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Demand of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Complainant's testimony requires corroboration in trap cases
- Non-examination of material witness raises doubt
- Benefit of doubt to accused
