Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Manohar Bodade, was convicted by the Special Judge, Aurangabad in Special Case No. 01/1993 for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and one year respectively, with fines. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, a public servant working as an E.G.S. candidate in the District Supply Office, demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 130 from the complainant for issuing a ration card. The complainant initially gave Rs. 20 and was asked to pay the remaining amount the next day. A trap was laid on 23.09.1992, and the appellant allegedly accepted the bribe amount. However, during trial, the complainant turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The panch witness was also not independent. Additionally, the prosecution failed to prove the sanction order under Section 19 of the Act, as the sanctioning authority was not examined. The High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable due to lack of valid sanction and unreliable evidence. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 - Mandatory Requirement - The prosecution of a public servant without a valid sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is void ab initio. In the present case, the sanction order was not proved by the prosecution, and the sanctioning authority was not examined, rendering the trial vitiated. (Paras 6-8) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) - Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the complainant and trap witnesses must be cogent and reliable. In this case, the complainant turned hostile and the panch witness was not independent, leading to failure of proof. (Paras 9-12) C) Evidence Act - Hostile Witness - Effect on Prosecution Case - When a material witness turns hostile and resiles from his earlier statement, the prosecution case becomes weak and unreliable. The court cannot base a conviction on the testimony of a hostile witness without corroboration. (Para 10)
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 in law, particularly in the absence of valid sanction and reliable evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is mandatory for prosecution of public servant
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Trap witness must be independent and reliable
