Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Dr. Smt. Usha Dhondiram Sarwade, a Casualty Medical Officer at Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad, was convicted by the Special Judge (A.C.), Aurangabad in Special Case No. 20 of 1997 for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. She was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.3000 for the latter offence, and six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.200 for the former, with sentences to run concurrently. The prosecution alleged that on 6.2.1996, the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.400 from the complainant Deelip Shelar to issue injury certificates for him and his father, who had been assaulted. The complainant, unwilling to pay, lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). A trap was laid, and the appellant was caught accepting the bribe money, which was treated with anthracene powder. The trial court convicted her based on the evidence of the complainant and the trap witnesses. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found several inconsistencies. The complainant's testimony was not corroborated by independent witnesses, and the panch witnesses did not fully support the prosecution's version. The anthracene powder test results showed that the powder was found on the appellant's hands and the currency notes, but the circumstances suggested that the money might have been planted or that the acceptance was not voluntary. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act was rebutted by the appellant. Consequently, the High 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(1)(d) r/w 13(2) - The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.400 from the complainant for issuing injury certificates. The evidence of the complainant was not corroborated by independent witnesses, and the anthracene powder test results were inconsistent with the alleged acceptance. Held that the conviction was not sustainable and the appeal was allowed. (Paras 1-10) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Rebuttable Presumption - The presumption under Section 20 of the Act is rebuttable and can be displaced by the accused on a preponderance of probabilities. In this case, the appellant successfully rebutted the presumption by showing inconsistencies in the prosecution case. (Paras 8-10)
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 based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is rebuttable
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Evidence of complainant must be corroborated in trap cases
- Anthracene powder test results must be consistent with alleged acceptance
