Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of Gopal Ambadas Gawali, a Police Head Constable, charged under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that on 18.2.1997, the accused demanded a bribe of Rs.1500 from complainant Dhanaji H. Rathod (PW-3) to show favour in a prohibition case under the Bombay Prohibition Act. The amount was later reduced to Rs.1000. A trap was laid, and the accused was caught accepting the bribe. The Special Judge, Solapur acquitted the accused on 20.7.2000. The High Court heard the appeal and examined the evidence. The complainant's testimony was found to be contradictory and unreliable. The panch witness turned hostile, and the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution. The court noted that the demand and acceptance of bribe were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act was rebutted by the accused's explanation that the money was a loan. The court held that the acquittal was justified and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Acquittal - The complainant's testimony was found unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration from independent witnesses - The court held that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt - The presumption under Section 20 was rebutted by the accused's explanation (Paras 10-25). B) Evidence Law - Trap Witness - Credibility - The complainant was an interested witness and his evidence required corroboration - The court found that the panch witness turned hostile and the trap was not properly conducted - Held that acquittal was proper (Paras 15-30).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was justified given the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; acquittal of accused upheld
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 complainant in trap cases
- Necessity of corroboration to independent witnesses
