Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Vijaykumar Marotrao Daiwalkar, was a Tax Superintendent in the Municipal Council, Chandrapur. He was convicted by the Special Judge, Chandrapur in Special Case No. 3 of 1992 under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000 on each count. The case arose from an allegation that the appellant demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 500 from the complainant for mutating the complainant's name in municipal records based on a will. The complainant's father died on 04/07/1989, bequeathing a house property to the complainant and his brothers. The complainant applied for mutation on 24/10/1989, and the inquiry was assigned to the appellant. The complainant alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 500 for processing the mutation. A trap was laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, and the appellant was caught accepting the bribe money. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the evidence of the complainant and trap witnesses. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found that the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and unreliable. The trap witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The mere recovery of tainted money from the appellant was not sufficient to sustain the conviction, as the presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not be invoked without proof of demand. The court also noted that the complainant had a civil suit pending, which could have motivated a false implication. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) - Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to sustain conviction. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act arises only after the foundational fact of demand is established. In this case, the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and the trap witnesses turned hostile, leading to acquittal. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Law - Hostile Witness - Evidentiary Value - When prosecution witnesses turn hostile and their testimony is unreliable, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. The court held that the evidence of hostile witnesses cannot be used to convict the accused without corroboration. (Paras 5-8) C) Evidence Act - Appreciation of Evidence - Inconsistencies - Minor contradictions do not affect the prosecution case, but material contradictions and improvements in testimony create reasonable doubt. The court found that the complainant's version was not consistent and the trap witnesses did not support the prosecution. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable when the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 09/12/2003 passed by the Special Judge, Chandrapur in Special Case No. 3 of 1992 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act arises only after demand is proved
- Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict
