Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Uttam s/o Ganpat Ajgekar, was convicted by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Bureau, Greater Bombay, vide judgment dated 4th February 2012 in Special Case No.31 of 2010, for offences punishable 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 one year and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2). The prosecution case was that the complainant had applied for authorization/batch to the Regional Transport Office (RTO) for which a police verification report was needed. In May 2009, the complainant enquired at the local police station and was informed that papers were sent to CID Branch, Bombay. He visited the CID office and was directed to contact the accused. The accused gave his contact number and asked the complainant to meet on 10th June 2009. On that date, the accused told the complainant that his file/papers were missing and he would have to reconstruct the file, and allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs.5000/- for doing the needful. The complainant lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), and a trap was laid. On 11th June 2009, the complainant met the accused and handed over the tainted money, which was recovered from the accused's possession. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the evidence of the complainant and the trap witnesses. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The High Court, after reappreciating the evidence, found that the complainant's testimony was unreliable and contradictory. The panch witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. 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 Act was rebutted by the accused. The court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - Presumption under Section 20 - The court examined whether the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The trap witness's testimony was found unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 is rebuttable and the accused successfully rebutted it by showing that the recovery of tainted money alone, without proof of demand, is insufficient to sustain conviction. (Paras 1-26) B) Evidence Act - Trap Witness - Credibility - The court held that the evidence of a trap witness, being an interested witness, requires independent corroboration. In this case, the panch witness turned hostile and the complainant's testimony was inconsistent, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 15-20) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal Against Conviction - Appellate Court's Power to Reappreciate Evidence - The court, exercising its appellate jurisdiction, reappreciated the evidence and found that the trial court's judgment was perverse and based on incorrect appreciation of evidence. The conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted. (Paras 21-26)
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 demand and acceptance of bribe.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is rebuttable
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Evidence of trap witness requires corroboration
- Mere recovery of tainted money does not establish demand
