Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a criminal appeal filed by the original accused (since deceased) against his conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant was a Revenue Inspector at Kanhan, Nagpur. The prosecution alleged that on 07/06/1992, one Narayan Bhongade submitted an application for mutation of agricultural land, and the accused demanded a bribe of Rs. 500/- to effect the mutation. A trap was laid, and the accused was caught accepting the bribe. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The accused appealed, but died during the pendency of the appeal, and his wife continued the litigation. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and the panch witness turned hostile. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not be invoked without proof of demand and acceptance. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the accused.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - Burden of Proof - Prosecution must prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt before presumption under Section 20 arises - In the present case, the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and the panch witness turned hostile, creating doubt about the demand and acceptance - Held that the conviction cannot be sustained as the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients (Paras 10-14). B) Evidence Act - Hostile Witness - Effect of - Panch witness turned hostile and did not support prosecution case - The testimony of the complainant alone, being inconsistent and unreliable, is insufficient to prove the charge - Held that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused (Paras 11-13). C) Criminal Appeal - Acquittal - Inconsistencies in Prosecution Case - When the evidence of the complainant and the panch witness is contradictory and the prosecution fails to prove demand and acceptance, the accused is entitled to acquittal - Held that the appeal is allowed and the conviction is set aside (Paras 14-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 500/- for effecting mutation entry, and whether the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court on 30/9/2005 in Special Case No. 15 of 1995 is set aside. The accused is acquitted of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The bail bonds stand cancelled.
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 prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt
- Inconsistencies in testimony of complainant and panch witness create doubt
- Acquittal if evidence is not cogent and reliable
