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 a bribe of Rs. 500 from the complainant for mutating his name in municipal records pursuant to 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 handed over to the appellant. The complainant alleged that the appellant demanded Rs. 500 for the mutation. A trap was laid, and the appellant was caught accepting tainted currency notes. The trial court convicted the appellant. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant's testimony was not corroborated by independent witnesses, and the trap witnesses were interested parties. The court held that mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act arises only after demand is proved. Since the demand was not established, the conviction was set aside. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.
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 the absence of credible evidence of demand, the accused is entitled to acquittal. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Law - Trap Case - Credibility of Witnesses - Interested Witnesses - In trap cases, the evidence of complainant and trap witnesses must be scrutinized carefully. If the complainant is an interested party and his testimony is not corroborated by independent witnesses, the conviction cannot be based solely on such evidence. (Paras 5-8) C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 20 - Presumption - The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 that a public servant who accepts gratification is presumed to have done so as a motive or reward, is rebuttable and arises only after the prosecution proves demand and acceptance. (Paras 9-10)
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
Appeal 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 all charges. His bail bonds stand discharged.
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
