Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sanjay Gopalrao Wangikar, an Extension Officer in the Social Welfare Section of Zilla Parishad, Parbhani, was convicted by the Special Judge, Parbhani in Special Case No. 01/2000 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 six months and fine of Rs.500 for the offence under Section 7, and rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.500 for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2), with default sentences. The appellant filed an appeal against this conviction. The case arose from a complaint by one Dattatraya (PW1) that the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.500 for processing a scholarship application. A trap was laid, and tainted currency notes were recovered from the appellant's possession. The prosecution examined four witnesses, including the complainant (PW1), a panch witness (PW2), and the investigating officer (PW4). The defence argued that the complainant was an interested witness and his testimony was unreliable, that the demand was not proved, and that the recovery was not corroborated. The court analyzed the evidence and found that PW1's testimony was inconsistent and not supported by PW2, who turned hostile. The court noted that the trap witness (PW1) was an interested witness and his evidence required corroboration, which was lacking. The court also observed that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act is rebuttable and that the appellant had successfully rebutted it by showing that the recovery was not preceded by a valid demand. Consequently, 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), 13(2) - The court examined whether the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt - The trap witness (PW1) was found to be unreliable and his testimony was not corroborated by independent witnesses - The court held that mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to prove demand and acceptance, and the presumption under Section 20 is rebuttable - The appellant was acquitted (Paras 1-15).
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 based on the evidence of a trap witness and recovery of tainted currency notes.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act is rebuttable
- Demand and acceptance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Trap witness is an interested witness requiring corroboration
- Recovery alone is not sufficient to prove demand
