Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ramesh Sonawane, was an Assistant Sub-Inspector at a police chowki in Government Medical College Hospital, Aurangabad. He was convicted by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Bureau, Aurangabad, for offences under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.200 to provide medical certificates. The complainant's brothers had been injured in an accident and treated at the hospital. The complainant alleged that the appellant demanded Rs.200 for the certificates. A trap was laid, and the appellant was caught with tainted currency notes. The High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the complainant and the shadow panch was contradictory and lacked corroboration. The recovery of money alone was insufficient to sustain the conviction. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; presumption under Section 20 arises only after such proof. In this case, the evidence of the complainant and shadow panch was inconsistent and uncorroborated, and the recovery of tainted currency notes alone was insufficient to prove demand. Held that the conviction was unsustainable (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 does not arise unless demand and acceptance of bribe are proved
- Standard of proof in corruption cases
- Necessity of corroboration to trap witness testimony
