Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Manohar Rangnath Jagtap, was working as an Accountant at Mahatma Phule Magaswarg Vikas Mahamandal, Buldana, responsible for issuing subsidy cheques to beneficiaries. The complainant, Ashruba, along with one Sanjay, enquired about their cheques, and the appellant allegedly demanded Rs.500 per cheque, later reduced to Rs.250 each. The complainant, unwilling to pay, lodged a report with the Anti-Corruption Bureau. A trap was laid, and pancha no.1 Ashok (brother-in-law of complainant) accompanied the complainant to the appellant's office. The raiding party waited outside. The complainant asked if cheques were ready; the appellant asked Ashok to go outside. The trap resulted in the appellant's arrest. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sentencing him to one year RI and fine. The appellant appealed. The High Court examined the evidence, noting that the trap witness (pancha no.1) was an interested witness being related to the complainant, and his testimony was not corroborated by independent evidence. The prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act was rebutted by the defence. 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) r/w 13(2) - Trap Witness Credibility - The appellant, an accountant, was convicted for demanding and accepting Rs.250 as bribe for issuing subsidy cheques. The High Court held that the trap witness (pancha no.1) was an interested witness being the brother-in-law of the complainant, and his testimony lacked corroboration. The prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption under Section 20 was rebutted by the defence. Conviction set aside (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable based on the evidence of a trap witness and the prosecution's failure to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 9.4.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana in Special Anti-Corruption Case No.3 of 2000 is set aside. Appellant is acquitted of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Fine, if paid, be refunded.
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 interested or partisan witnesses requires corroboration
- Trap witness is an interested witness whose testimony must be scrutinized carefully
