Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Anil Krishnarao Apashingkar, was a Sub-Engineer with M.S.E.D.C.L. The complainant, Jagannath Rajaram Mane, applied for an electric connection for his agricultural well. After depositing the required fee, the appellant demanded Rs.15,000 as bribe to expedite the connection. The complainant lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau, and a trap was laid. On 16th May 2010, the appellant accepted the bribe money, and tainted currency notes were recovered from his possession. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sentencing him to imprisonment and fine. The appellant appealed, challenging the conviction on grounds of insufficient evidence and credibility of witnesses. The High Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of the complainant, trap witness, and investigating officer. The court found that the prosecution had proved the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant's possession was corroborated. The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act applied, and the appellant failed to rebut it. The court upheld the conviction, finding no merit in the appeal. The judgment emphasized that the evidence of the trap witness was reliable and that the appellant's defense was not credible.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Trap and Recovery - The appellant, a Sub-Engineer, demanded and accepted Rs.15,000 as bribe for granting electric connection. The trap was laid and tainted currency notes were recovered from the appellant. The court held that the prosecution proved demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act applied. (Paras 1-37) B) Evidence - Trap Witness - Credibility - The trap witness (panch) corroborated the complainant's version. The court found no reason to disbelieve the trap witness, as his testimony was consistent and reliable. (Paras 15-20) C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Burden of Proof - Once demand and acceptance are proved, the presumption arises that the accused accepted the gratification as a motive or reward. The accused failed to rebut the presumption. (Paras 25-30)
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 dismissed. Conviction and sentence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 upheld.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act
- Demand and acceptance of bribe
- Trap witness credibility
- Recovery of tainted currency notes
- Shifting of burden of proof
