Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mansaram s/o Damu Ahire, a Head Constable attached to Lasalgaon police station, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Niphad, in Special Case No.01 of 2007 for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1000/- for each offence, with default sentences. The prosecution case was that the complainant, Dattu Gawali, had a land dispute with his brother. On 11/05/2006, he lodged a complaint with the appellant, who allegedly demanded Rs.2000/- to take action. On 19/06/2006, the appellant allegedly demanded Rs.1000/- to take the complainant's side and not arrest him. The complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Nashik, and a trap was laid on 21/06/2006. The appellant accepted two notes of Rs.500/- and was caught. The trial court convicted the appellant. The appellant challenged the conviction in the High Court. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the complainant's testimony was full of contradictions and improvements. The panch witness did not support the prosecution case. The court noted that the complainant had a motive to falsely implicate the appellant due to the land dispute and previous enmity. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act was rebutted by the appellant. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) - Credibility of Complainant - The appellant, a Head Constable, was convicted for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.1000/- from the complainant. 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. The appeal was allowed and the conviction was set aside. (Paras 1-21) B) Evidence Act - Corroboration - Trap Witness - The court held that the evidence of the complainant in a trap case must be scrutinized carefully and if found untrustworthy, conviction cannot be based solely on it. The panch witness did not support the prosecution case, and the recovery of money alone was insufficient to prove demand. (Paras 12-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 03/05/2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge–2, Niphad, in Special Case No.01 of 2007 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is rebuttable
- Standard of proof in corruption cases
- Credibility of complainant in trap cases
- Necessity of corroboration of complainant's testimony
