Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rajesh Mopkar, a clerk in the Income Tax Office, Nagpur, was convicted by the Special Judge, Nagpur, for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 220 from the complainant, Arun Mahant, an LIC agent, for issuing acknowledgment receipts for tax refund forms. The complainant alleged that on 2.9.1993, the appellant demanded Rs. 40 per form for three forms and Rs. 100 for prior work, totaling Rs. 220, to be paid on 6.9.1993. The complainant approached the CBI, which set up a trap. On 6.9.1993, the complainant and panch witnesses went to the appellant's office; the appellant allegedly accepted the money, and the trap was executed. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the testimony of the complainant and official witnesses. On appeal, the Bombay High Court re-appreciated the evidence and found several discrepancies. The complainant's testimony was inconsistent regarding the demand and acceptance. The panch witnesses were not independent; one was a colleague from the same office, and their evidence lacked credibility. The phenolphthalein test results were not properly corroborated. 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 Prevention of Corruption Act could not be invoked as the foundational facts were not established. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; presumption under Section 20 arises only after such proof. In this case, the evidence of the complainant and panch witnesses was found unreliable due to contradictions and lack of independent corroboration. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe. (Paras 2-10) B) Evidence Act - Credibility of Witnesses - Section 134 - Independent Witnesses - The court noted that the panch witnesses were not independent as they were from the same department and their testimony was not trustworthy. The court emphasized that in trap cases, independent witnesses are crucial to ensure fairness. (Paras 5-8) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal Against Conviction - Section 374 - Appellate Court's Power - The appellate court can re-appreciate evidence and interfere with findings if they are perverse or based on no evidence. The court found that the trial court's judgment was based on conjectures and surmises, and thus set aside the conviction. (Paras 1-10)
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 in law.
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 arises only when demand and acceptance are proved
- Standard of proof in criminal cases
- Importance of independent panch witnesses
- Credibility of official witnesses
