Case Note & Summary
The case involves three appeals against a judgment of the Special Judge (under PC Act), Greater Mumbai, convicting the appellants for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1267 of 2013, Arun Sambhaji Khanvilkar (original accused No.1), was a public servant working as a Senior Clerk in the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, D.N. Nagar, Mumbai. He was convicted under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1299 of 2013, Chetan Laxman Desai @ Khamla (original accused No.2), and Criminal Appeal No.1306 of 2013, Sanjay Brijlal Khakkar (original accused No.3), were private individuals convicted under Section 12 of the PC Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and a fine of Rs.50,000/- each. The prosecution case was that the complainant, a businessman, had a dispute with his tenant and sought police help. Accused No.1 demanded a bribe of Rs.50,000/- to settle the matter, which was later reduced to Rs.30,000/-. The complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), and a trap was laid. The tainted money was recovered from accused No.1, and accused No.2 and 3 were present and facilitated the transaction. The trial court convicted all three. The High Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of the complainant, panch witness, and investigating officer, and found that the demand and acceptance of bribe were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The court also held that the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act applied and was not rebutted. The appeals were dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - Conviction of public servant for demanding and accepting bribe for official favour - Evidence of complainant and panch witness corroborated by trap proceedings and recovery of tainted money - Held that the prosecution proved demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 10-25). B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Abetment - Section 12 - Conviction of private individuals for abetting bribe - Accused No.2 and 3 facilitated the bribe transaction - Their presence and role in demand and acceptance established - Held that abetment under Section 12 is made out (Paras 26-30). C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption - Section 20 - Once acceptance of bribe is proved, presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward under Section 7 arises - Accused failed to rebut presumption - Held that the trial court correctly applied the presumption (Paras 31-35).
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 based on the evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed all three appeals and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act
- 1988
- Demand and acceptance of bribe
- Abetment under Section 12 of PC Act
- Standard of proof in corruption cases
- Credibility of trap witnesses
