Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Pralhad Sadashiv Badole, a retired government servant and former District Fishery Officer at Wardha, was convicted by the Special Judge, Wardha in Special (ACB) Case No. 4 of 2000 for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 2,000 for the offence under Section 7, and rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs. 3,000 for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2). The case arose from a complaint by the Vice-President of Dolphin Matsya Vyavsay Sahakari Sanstha, who alleged that the appellant demanded Rs. 4,000 as bribe for processing the society's application for fishing lease of Kunbaid pond. The complainant claimed that on 25/11/1998, the accountant Gedam told him that the appellant instructed him to collect Rs. 4,000 from the society members, and the complainant paid the amount to Gedam. A trap was laid on 26/11/1998, and the appellant was caught accepting the bribe. The trial court convicted the appellant. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and unreliable, and the panch witness was not independent. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not be invoked without proof of demand and acceptance. 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 illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt; presumption under Section 20 arises only after such proof. In this case, the evidence of demand was unreliable and the trap witnesses were not independent, leading to acquittal. (Paras 1-10) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Trap Witness - Credibility - Section 7 - The testimony of trap witnesses must be scrutinized carefully; if they are interested or their evidence is inconsistent, conviction cannot be sustained. The court found the panch witness and complainant's testimony unreliable. (Paras 5-8)
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 when the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act arises only after demand and acceptance are proved
- Burden of proof on prosecution to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt
- Acquittal if evidence of demand is unreliable
