Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra, through the Anti Corruption Bureau, Buldana, appealed against the judgment and order dated 28/06/2000 passed by the Learned Special Judge, Buldana in Special Case No. 2 of 1992, whereby the respondent-accused, Baburao Sakharam Gawai, a Minimum Wages Inspector, was acquitted of offenses punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case arose from a complaint lodged on 17/08/1991 by Kishorkumar Manaklal Chandak, who alleged that the accused demanded Rs. 300 to settle a matter concerning an agricultural labourer, later reduced to Rs. 200. A trap was laid on 19/08/1991, and the accused was allegedly caught accepting the bribe money. The trial court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the complainant's testimony regarding the first demand was not corroborated by independent witnesses, and the evidence of PW4 Ramadas Borate was unreliable as his statement was not recorded. The defense argued that the money was planted to falsely implicate the accused. The High Court upheld the acquittal, noting that the prosecution had not discharged its burden of proving demand and acceptance, and therefore the presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not be raised. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Acquittal - The prosecution failed to prove the initial demand of bribe by the accused as the complainant's evidence was not corroborated by independent witnesses and the alleged first demand was not believable. The trial court's acquittal was upheld as the evidence of demand and acceptance was shaky and unreliable. (Paras 1-4) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Burden of Proof - The presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be raised only after the prosecution proves the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of credible evidence on demand, the presumption cannot be invoked. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused beyond reasonable doubt to sustain conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Learned Special Judge, Buldana, dated 28/06/2000 in Special Case No. 2 of 1992 is upheld.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 arises only after prosecution proves demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt
- Burden of proof on prosecution to prove demand and acceptance
- Acquittal justified when evidence of demand is shaky and unreliable
