Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra, through the Anti Corruption Bureau, appealed against the judgment and order dated 5th August 2006 passed by the Special Judge, Pune, acquitting the respondent-accused, Srirang Dagaduji Bale, of offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution's case was that the complainant, Sambhaji Namdeo Sakhare (PW-1), and his family were entitled to compensation of Rs.1,19,290/- for acquisition of their property. On 7th August 2003, when PW-1 went to the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Maval, to collect the compensation, the accused, who was a public servant, allegedly demanded Rs.1,000/- for preparing and issuing a cheque of Rs.30,000/-. As PW-1 did not have the amount, the accused asked him to bring it the next day. PW-1 lodged a complaint with the ACB, and after pre-trap panchanama formalities, a raiding party went to the accused's office on 8th August 2003. The accused told them to come back on 11th August 2003. On 11th August, after fresh pre-trap formalities, the accused again asked them to come on 12th August. On 12th August, the accused took the complainant's signature on a receipt but said the concerned officer was unavailable and asked them to come on 14th August. On 14th August, after pre-trap formalities, the raiding party went again; the accused initially asked them to return at 4:00 p.m., and later, when they returned, the accused gave a cheque to the complainant. The complainant allegedly handed over the bribe amount of Rs.1,000/- to the accused, which was recovered from his person. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution evidence unreliable. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found material contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 (shadow panch). The court noted that the complainant's version of events was inconsistent, and the shadow panch's evidence was contradictory. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act was rebutted by the accused, who demonstrated that the money was thrust upon him. The High Court concluded that the trial court's acquittal was not perverse and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Standard of Proof - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to convict under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Held that the trial court's acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence and not perverse (Paras 1-14). B) Evidence Act - Trap Witness - Credibility - The testimony of a trap witness (panch witness) must be scrutinized with care; if the witness is interested or his evidence is contradictory, conviction cannot be based solely on such testimony - Held that the shadow panch's evidence was unreliable due to material contradictions (Paras 8-12). C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Rebuttable Presumption - The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 that a public servant who accepts gratification is presumed to have done so as a motive or reward is rebuttable; if the defence raises a reasonable doubt, the presumption is displaced - Held that the accused successfully rebutted the presumption by showing that the money was thrust upon him (Paras 13-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent-accused for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was perverse and liable to be set aside.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent-accused.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is rebuttable
- standard of proof for demand and acceptance of bribe
- credibility of trap witnesses
- effect of contradictions in prosecution evidence
