Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Chandrakant Kisan Pujari, was a Noting Assistant at the District Industries Centre, Solapur. He was convicted by the Special Judge, Sangli, for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and fine. The complainant, Mahadeo Sadashiv Patil, had applied for setting up a factory and alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.400, of which Rs.100 was paid initially, and later demanded Rs.300 for processing documents. A trap was laid, and the appellant was caught accepting the bribe. The appellant died during the appeal, and his widow pursued the appeal. The High Court found that the trap witnesses, including the complainant and his cousin Vijay, were interested witnesses, and their testimony was not corroborated by independent evidence. The panch witness turned hostile, and the investigating officer's testimony did not inspire confidence. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption under Section 20 of the Act did not arise. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - Conviction set aside - The prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt as the trap witnesses were interested and their testimony was not corroborated by independent evidence - Held that the presumption under Section 20 does not arise unless demand is proved (Paras 1-10).
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 based on the evidence of interested witnesses and lack of independent corroboration.
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 is rebuttable
- Evidence of interested witnesses requires corroboration
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (02) 66
Criminal Appeal No. 578 of 1999
Mr. A.M. Joshi for the Appellant, Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for the Respondent State
Shri. Chandrakant Kisan Pujari (since deceased through his widow Smt. Jayashree Chandrakant Pujari)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal from conviction and sentence
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted by Special Judge, Sangli for demanding and accepting bribe
Previous Decisions
Conviction by Special Judge, Sangli under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Issues
Whether the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt?
Whether the evidence of interested witnesses without corroboration is sufficient for conviction?
Whether the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act arises in this case?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the trap witnesses were interested and their testimony was not reliable, and the panch witness turned hostile.
Respondent argued that the conviction was based on credible evidence and the presumption under Section 20 applied.
Ratio Decidendi
In a corruption case, the prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act arises only after demand is proved. Evidence of interested witnesses, such as the complainant and his relative, requires independent corroboration. In the absence of such corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal is being pursued by legal representative of the convict questioning the conviction recorded by the learned Special Judge, Sangli, for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, sentencing the appellant to suffer R.I. for one year on each count and fine of Rs.1,000/- each on the two counts or in default R.I. for one month on each count.
Procedural History
The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge, Sangli. He appealed to the Bombay High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died, and his widow was brought on record as legal representative. The High Court heard the appeal and delivered judgment on 15th February 2011.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2), 20
