Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Anil Meshram, a BSNL employee, was convicted by the Special Judge, Gadchiroli for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 1,500 from complainant Yadeorao for early installation of a telephone connection. The complainant alleged that after depositing Rs. 1,200 for the connection, the accused demanded Rs. 2,000, later reduced to Rs. 1,500. The complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau, and a trap was laid on June 5, 1996. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the accused, and his hands turned pink in the sodium carbonate test. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and three years respectively. On appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the evidence, noting that the complainant's testimony was inconsistent with that of the panch witness regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, as the complainant's version was not corroborated by the panch witness. The recovery of tainted money alone, without proof of demand, was insufficient to sustain the conviction. The court also held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not be invoked without establishing the foundational facts of demand and acceptance. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - Proof - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient. Inconsistent testimony of complainant and panch witness regarding demand and acceptance creates reasonable doubt. Held that conviction cannot be sustained when evidence is contradictory and unreliable (Paras 1-10). B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Rebuttable Presumption - The presumption under Section 20 of the Act is rebuttable and arises only when demand and acceptance are proved. If the foundational facts are not established, the presumption cannot be invoked. Held that the trial court erred in relying on the presumption without proof of demand (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in law based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and order dated 22/03/2012 passed by the Special Judge, Gadchiroli in Special (ACB) Case No.5 of 1996 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 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
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Inconsistent testimony of complainant and panch witness creates doubt
- Recovery of tainted money alone insufficient for conviction
