Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sri. Manjanna M.K., a Head Constable at Bagalagunte Police Station, was convicted by the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (P.C.A) Bengaluru in Spl.C.C.No.383/2018 for offences under Sections 8 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.50,000 for the offence under Section 8 and four years with a fine of Rs.50,000 for the offence under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2). The case arose from a complaint by P.W.2, who alleged that the accused demanded a bribe of Rs.5,000 to show leniency in Crime No.238/2017 registered against the complainant and P.W.6. A trap was laid by the Lokayukta police, and the accused was caught accepting the bribe. The trial court convicted the accused based on the evidence of the complainant and the trap mahazar. The appellant challenged the conviction before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The trap mahazar was unreliable as the shadow witness (P.W.6) was not examined, and the complainant's testimony was contradictory. The independent panch witness was also not examined. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act was rebutted by the accused, as the prosecution did not establish the foundational facts of demand and acceptance. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The judgment was pronounced on 02.05.2025.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 8, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The trap mahazar was not reliable as the shadow witness was not examined, and the complainant's testimony was contradictory. The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act was rebutted by the accused. Held that the conviction was unsustainable and the accused is entitled to acquittal (Paras 2-30). B) Evidence Law - Trap Proceedings - Credibility of Witnesses - The non-examination of the shadow witness and the independent panch witness created a serious lacuna in the prosecution case. The complainant's evidence was not corroborated by independent witnesses. Held that the prosecution must examine independent witnesses to prove trap proceedings (Paras 15-25). C) Criminal Law - Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act - Rebuttal - The presumption of corruption under Section 20 of the PC Act is rebuttable. The accused successfully rebutted the presumption by showing that the money was planted without his demand. Held that the burden shifts to the accused only after demand and acceptance are proved (Paras 20-28).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.5,000 from the complainant to show leniency in a criminal case, and whether the trial court's conviction was sustainable.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.09.2021 passed by the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (P.C.A) Bengaluru in Spl.C.C.No.383/2018 is set aside. Appellant is acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act is rebuttable
- Demand and acceptance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Trap mahazar must be reliable
- Independent witnesses must be examined
- Contradictions in prosecution case lead to benefit of doubt
