Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Manikrao Salunke, was a Naib Tahsildar in Omerga, Osmanabad district. He was convicted by the Special Judge, Osmanabad, for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 2000 from the complainant, Prabhakar Kardhore, to allot a house of category 'B' under the earthquake rehabilitation scheme. The complainant alleged that on 9.5.1995, the appellant demanded Rs. 2000 in a hotel, and on 10.5.1995, the complainant gave the money to the appellant in his office, which was recovered by a trap. The High Court found that the evidence of the complainant and the panch witness was inconsistent and lacked corroboration. The complainant's testimony about the demand was not supported by the panch witness, and the recovery of money alone was insufficient to prove acceptance. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act did not arise. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - Proof of Demand - The prosecution must prove demand of bribe by credible and reliable evidence. In the present case, the evidence of the complainant and the panch witness regarding demand was inconsistent and lacked corroboration. The court held that the demand was not proved beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 10-12). B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - Corroboration - Mere recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused does not prove acceptance of bribe. The prosecution must prove that the accused voluntarily accepted the money as bribe. In this case, the evidence of the complainant and panch witness was contradictory, and the recovery was not sufficient to establish acceptance (Paras 13-15). C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Conditions for Raising Presumption - The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act can be raised only when the prosecution proves demand and acceptance of bribe. Since the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance, the presumption did not arise (Para 16). D) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Acquittal - When the prosecution case is weak and the evidence is inconsistent, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. The court set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted the appellant (Paras 17-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted.
Law Points
- Demand of bribe must be proved by credible evidence
- Acceptance of bribe must be corroborated by independent witnesses
- Mere recovery of tainted currency notes is not sufficient to prove demand and acceptance
- Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act arises only when demand and acceptance are proved
- Benefit of doubt must be given to accused when prosecution case is weak
