Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Anand Murlidhar Salvi, was a Senior Clerk in the office of the Executive Engineer, Implementation Wing, Town Planning, Yerwada, Pune. He was convicted by the Special Judge, Pune, under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs.1,500 from the complainant, Mrs. Smita Suresh Paranjape (PW-1), a fellow public servant, to process her arrears of pay bills. The complainant claimed that the appellant demanded the bribe for drawing and lodging bills in the treasury. A trap was laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, and the appellant was caught red-handed. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000, with default sentences. The appellant appealed to the High Court. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the complainant's testimony was unreliable. She admitted to having a prior dispute with the appellant over a loan, which gave her a motive to falsely implicate him. The panch witness (PW-3) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. The investigating officer's testimony was also found to be inconsistent. The court noted that the complainant was an interested witness and her evidence required corroboration, which was lacking. The appellant's defence was that the amount was a loan given to him for his wife's medical treatment, and the complainant had agreed to lend him money. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act was rebutted by the appellant's plausible explanation. 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) - Trap Case - Credibility of Complainant - The appellant, a Senior Clerk, was convicted for accepting Rs.1,500 as illegal gratification for processing arrears of pay bills. The High Court held that the complainant's testimony was unreliable as she had a motive to falsely implicate the appellant due to previous enmity, and her evidence was not corroborated by independent witnesses. The presumption under Section 20 was rebutted by the appellant's explanation. Conviction set aside. (Paras 4-14) B) Evidence Act - Corroboration - Trap Case - Complainant as Interested Witness - In trap cases, the complainant is an interested witness and his/her testimony requires corroboration from independent sources. The court found that the panch witness (PW-3) turned hostile and the investigating officer's testimony did not inspire confidence. Held that conviction cannot be based solely on uncorroborated testimony of an interested witness. (Paras 8-12) C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Rebuttal - The presumption that a public servant who accepts gratification does so as a motive or reward for official act is rebuttable. The appellant's explanation that the amount was a loan for medical expenses, supported by the complainant's admission of prior acquaintance, was sufficient to rebut the presumption. (Paras 10-13)
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. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is rebuttable
- Complainant's testimony must be corroborated in trap cases
- Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
