Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Raju Shantaram Kakphale, a peon in the Thane District Court, was convicted by the Special Judge, Thane, for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.300 from the complainant, Tapan, for supplying certified copies of a judgment. The complainant had been acquitted in Criminal Case No. 3629/2004 on 31st January 2008 and applied for certified copies the same day, paying copying charges. The copies were to be delivered on 4th February 2008. The prosecution alleged that the appellant demanded Rs.300 as illegal gratification for the copies. A trap was laid, and the appellant was caught accepting the tainted money. The trial court convicted and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000 under Section 7, and six months and fine of Rs.1,000 under Section 13(2). The appellant appealed. The High Court examined the evidence, noting that the trap witness (panch) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. The complainant's testimony was found to be inconsistent and unreliable. The court observed that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant's explanation that the amount was towards copying charges was plausible and sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. The court held that mere recovery of tainted money does not establish guilt without proof 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 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Burden of Proof - The appellant, a peon, was convicted for demanding and accepting Rs.300 for supplying certified copies. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 was rebutted by the appellant's explanation that the money was towards copying charges. (Paras 1-16) B) Evidence - Trap Witness - Credibility - The trap witness (panch) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The complainant's testimony was inconsistent and unreliable. The court held that without credible evidence of demand and acceptance, conviction cannot be sustained. (Paras 7-12) C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 20 - Presumption - The presumption of corruption under Section 20 is rebuttable. The appellant's explanation that the amount was for legitimate copying charges was plausible and sufficient to rebut the presumption. (Paras 13-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable when the demand and acceptance of bribe are not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is rebuttable
- Demand and acceptance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Mere recovery of tainted money does not establish guilt
