Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Yuvraj Chintaman Selokar, was a senior clerk in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aheri. He was convicted by the Special Judge, Gadchiroli in Special Case No. 7 of 2005 for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine. The case arose from an incident on 11/6/2003 when a driver of a luxury bus was prosecuted under the Motor Vehicles Act. The driver did not appear in court, leading to issuance of a non-bailable warrant. The driver was arrested on 27/01/2005 and produced before the magistrate on 28/01/2005. The complainant alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 500 to release the driver on bail. A trap was laid, and the appellant was caught accepting tainted money. However, during trial, the complainant turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the evidence of the investigating officer and the recovery of money. The appellant appealed to the High Court. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant's testimony was unreliable, and there was no independent witness to corroborate the demand. The court held that mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient for conviction, and the presumption under Section 20 of the Act does not arise unless demand and acceptance are proved. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d) - Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted money does not attract the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. In this case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile, and there was no independent witness to corroborate the demand. The court held that the conviction cannot be sustained as the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance were not proved. (Paras 1-10) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Applicability - Section 20 - The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 arises only when it is proved that the accused accepted or obtained gratification. Since the prosecution failed to prove acceptance, the presumption did not arise. The court held that the trial court erred in convicting the appellant based on presumption without proof of demand and acceptance. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) 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 of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act does not arise unless demand and acceptance are proved
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient for conviction
