Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Yashwant Sambhaji Dadmal, a police constable, was convicted by the Special Judge, Chandrapur in Special Case No.6 of 1999 for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.300 for each offence. The case arose from an incident on 01/09/1998 when the complainant Subhash Yelpulla, an auto driver, and his friends were having fun and one of them threw a stone that hit the appellant's motorcycle. The appellant noted their names and directed them to appear at Mahakali Police Chauki. When they did not appear, the appellant allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs.400 through a Police Mitra named Dindewar to avoid prosecution. A trap was laid on 04/09/1998, and tainted currency notes were recovered from the appellant. The complainant turned hostile during trial and did not support the prosecution case. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the evidence of the trap witness Dindewar and the recovery of tainted notes. On appeal, the Bombay High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the trap witness Dindewar was an interested witness and his testimony lacked corroboration. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not be invoked as the foundational facts of demand and acceptance were not established. The court also observed that the complainant's hostile testimony and the lack of independent witnesses weakened the prosecution case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was 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) - Presumption under Section 20 - The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act is rebuttable and arises only after demand and acceptance are proved. In this case, the evidence of the trap witness (Police Mitra) was unreliable and uncorroborated, and the complainant turned hostile. The recovery of tainted currency notes alone, without proof of demand and voluntary acceptance, is insufficient to sustain conviction. The appellant was acquitted. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Act - Hostile Witness - Corroboration - The complainant turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The court held that conviction cannot be based solely on the testimony of an interested trap witness without independent corroboration. The prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable based on the evidence of a trap witness and recovery of tainted currency notes.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge, Chandrapur in Special Case No.6 of 1999 are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds stand discharged.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is rebuttable
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Evidence of trap witness requires corroboration
- Mere recovery of tainted currency notes is not sufficient to prove acceptance
