Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sewakdas Tukaram Jumde, was convicted by the trial court for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to imprisonment and fine. He appealed to the Bombay High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died, and his widow continued the appeal. The case arose from an alleged demand of Rs.500 by the appellant, who was a Senior Assistant in the Panchayat Samiti Office, from the complainant Ashok Kodape for processing the pension case of his deceased father. A trap was laid, and the appellant was caught accepting the money. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and not corroborated by independent witnesses. The panch witnesses turned hostile, and the prosecution failed to prove the demand beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act does not apply unless demand and acceptance are first proved. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 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 complainant's testimony was inconsistent and uncorroborated, and the trap witnesses turned hostile, leading to failure to prove demand. Held that conviction cannot be sustained (Paras 1-23).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved the demand of illegal gratification by the accused beyond reasonable doubt to sustain conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 07.05.2003 convicting the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, be refunded.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 arises only after demand and acceptance are proved
- Burden of proof on prosecution to establish demand
- Inconsistencies in witness testimony lead to benefit of doubt
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (09) 112
Criminal Appeal No.339 of 2003
Mr. R.D. Wakode for Appellant, Mr. N.R. Rode, APP for Respondent/State
Sewakdas Tukaram Jumde (since deceased, through Smt. Kusum Sewakdas Jumde)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for corruption
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal from conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted by trial court for demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.500 for processing pension case
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted appellant on 07.05.2003 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Issues
Whether the prosecution proved the demand of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt?
Whether the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act can be invoked without proof of demand and acceptance?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and uncorroborated, and the trap witnesses turned hostile, thus the prosecution failed to prove demand.
Respondent/State argued that the evidence of the complainant and the trap witnesses established the demand and acceptance, and the presumption under Section 20 should apply.
Ratio Decidendi
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt before the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be invoked. Inconsistent and uncorroborated testimony of the complainant, coupled with hostile trap witnesses, fails to establish the demand, leading to acquittal.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard rival arguments on this criminal appeal preferred by appellant/original accused challenging the judgment and order dated 07.05.2003, by which the appellant/original accused was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988...
During the pendency of the appeal original appellant/accused died on 14.11.2010 and his widow proceeded further with the said appeal...
Procedural History
The appellant was convicted by the trial court on 07.05.2003. He appealed to the Bombay High Court. During the appeal, the appellant died on 14.11.2010, and his widow was substituted. The High Court heard arguments and reserved judgment on 05.09.2012, pronouncing it on 28.09.2012.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2), 20
