Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sanjay Bapurao Kale, a Deputy Accountant with the Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, was convicted by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Pune, in Special Case No.16 of 1999 under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000 with default stipulation. Aggrieved, he appealed under Section 374(2) CrPC. The prosecution alleged that the appellant demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.500 from the complainant to process a bill. A trap was laid, and tainted money was recovered from the appellant. The trial court convicted him. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of the trap witness (PW-1). The court noted that the trap witness was not independent; he was a colleague of the complainant and had a prior relationship. His testimony was inconsistent and lacked corroboration. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the twin requirements of demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The recovery of tainted money alone was insufficient to sustain the conviction. The court also observed that the panch witness (PW-2) did not support the prosecution case. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - The prosecution must prove both demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient. The court held that the trap witness was not independent and his testimony lacked corroboration, leading to acquittal. (Paras 3-7) B) Evidence Law - Trap Witness - Credibility - A trap witness is an interested witness and his testimony requires corroboration. The court found that the trap witness's evidence was unreliable and not corroborated by independent evidence, thus the prosecution failed to prove the case. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution has proved the twin requirement of 'demand' and 'acceptance' of bribe money beyond reasonable doubt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted.
Law Points
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Trap witness must be independent and reliable
- Corroboration of trap witness testimony is essential
- Mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to prove demand and acceptance
