Case Note & Summary
The case involves two appeals against the judgment of the Special Court, Khamgaon, convicting the appellants under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complainant, Subhash Murthe, alleged that on 16.4.1998, when he went to the Sub Registrar's office to register a sale deed, accused no.1 (Ramrao Kale, Sub Registrar) demanded Rs. 150 as gratification and returned the deed when he refused. The complainant approached the Anti Corruption Bureau on 17.4.1998, and a trap was laid. The appellants were caught and convicted. The High Court, after perusing the original record, found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the complainant was inconsistent, and the panch witness did not support the prosecution. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act does not arise unless demand and acceptance are proved. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside. The appellants were acquitted.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of credible evidence, the presumption under Section 20 does not arise. The court held that the evidence of the complainant and panch witnesses was inconsistent and unreliable, and the trap was not properly conducted. (Paras 2-10) B) Criminal Law - Trap Witness - Credibility - The testimony of a trap witness must be scrutinized with care. The court found that the complainant's version was not corroborated by independent witnesses and the panch witness turned hostile. Hence, the conviction was set aside. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 7, 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
Both appeals are allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in Special Case No. 1/2000 by the Special Court, Khamgaon is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Law Points
- Demand of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act arises only after demand and acceptance are proved
- Evidence of complainant must be corroborated in trap cases
