Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Pandurang Keshav Jamble, a City Survey Officer in the Revenue Department of Maharashtra, was convicted by the trial court for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- (in default three months). The prosecution case was that the complainant's father died in April 1991, and in September 1991, the complainant applied to enter the names of heirs in the revenue records for four lands. The appellant allegedly demanded Rs.200/- to process the request and issue property register cards. The complainant paid Rs.125/- in October 1991, leaving a balance of Rs.75/-. On 28th October 1991, the appellant demanded Rs.100/- (balance Rs.75 plus Rs.25 as reward). The complainant lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau. After verification and pre-trap panchanamas, a raiding party proceeded to the appellant's office. The trap witness (P.W.2) accompanied the complainant. The trial court convicted the appellant. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of the trap witness P.W.2, who was found to be a stock witness and whose evidence was unreliable. The court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The court also observed that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act is rebuttable, but in this case, the acceptance itself was not proved. 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 of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - Credibility of Trap Witness - The appellant, a City Survey Officer, was convicted for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.100/- from the complainant for issuing property register cards. The court held that the evidence of the trap witness (P.W.2) was unreliable as he was a stock witness and his testimony lacked corroboration. The prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1-9) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Rebuttable Presumption - The court noted that even if acceptance is proved, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act is rebuttable. However, in this case, the acceptance itself was not proved due to the unreliable evidence of the trap witness and the absence of independent corroboration. (Paras 8-9) C) Criminal Law - Standard of Proof - Beyond Reasonable Doubt - The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence on record fell short of this standard, leading to the acquittal of the appellant. (Paras 8-9)
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 based on the evidence of a trap witness whose testimony is unreliable and lacks corroboration.
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
- standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
- credibility of trap witnesses
- necessity of corroboration
