Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Devidas s/o Harichandra Bhaskar, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon on 26-11-2015 in Special (A.C.B.) Case No.13 of 2012 for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was serving as Assistant Superintendent at Civil Hospital, Jalgaon, a public servant. The complainant, Deepak Laxman Wadnere, alleged that his sister Mangala, a security guard at District Prison, incurred medical expenses of Rs.5,04,051/- and submitted bills for reimbursement. The appellant allegedly demanded Rs.50,000/- to process the bills. A trap was laid on 18-07-2012, and the appellant was caught accepting the bribe. The trial court convicted him. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence. The complainant's testimony was found contradictory regarding the demand and the amount. The panch witness (PW2) was a stock witness who had testified in multiple trap cases, making him an interested witness. The recovery of money was not corroborated by independent evidence. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act does not apply unless demand is proved. The appeal was allowed, conviction set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt - The court examined whether the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant, a public servant. The complainant's evidence was found unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration from independent witnesses. The trap witness (panch) was an interested witness and his testimony was not trustworthy. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act does not arise unless demand and acceptance are proved. The conviction was set aside (Paras 1-20).
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 in law.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act is rebuttable
- demand and acceptance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- evidence of interested witness requires corroboration
- trap witness is interested witness
