Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shankar Pandurang Waghere, was a Talathi working in the revenue department. The complainant, Suhas Jagtap, held a Power of Attorney for two individuals who had purchased property in village Anjaneri, Nashik. The complainant alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.6,000 to Rs.7,000, later reduced to Rs.4,000, to enter their names in the revenue records. The complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), which laid a trap on 17 March 2004. The trap involved applying anthracene powder to currency notes, which were handed over to the appellant at a juice center. The ACB officers recovered the notes, and the appellant was convicted by the Special Judge, Nashik, under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to one year RI and fine. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The court examined the evidence, noting that the complainant and the panch witness gave inconsistent versions regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe. The complainant stated that the appellant demanded the amount at the juice center, but the panch witness did not corroborate this. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act could not be invoked without proof of demand. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; presumption under Section 20 arises only after such proof. In this case, the evidence of the complainant and panch witness was inconsistent and unreliable, and the prosecution failed to prove the demand. Hence, the conviction was set aside. (Paras 1-22) B) Evidence Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Inconsistencies in Testimony - The testimony of the complainant and panch witness contained material contradictions regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe. The court held that such inconsistencies create reasonable doubt and the benefit must go to the accused. (Paras 10-18) C) Criminal Law - Trap Cases - Credibility of Witnesses - In trap cases, the evidence of the complainant and panch witnesses must be scrutinized carefully. If their versions are contradictory and unreliable, the accused is entitled to acquittal. (Paras 15-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act arises only after demand and acceptance are proved
- Burden of proof on prosecution to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt
- Inconsistencies in witness testimony weaken prosecution case
