Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ramdas Waman Tadge, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, in Special (A.C.B.) Case No. 01 of 2008 for offences under Sections 7, 12, and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.2,000 for each offence. The appellant was working as a clerk in the office of the District Sub Auditor and was holding charge as Auditor and Senior Clerk at the office of Cooperative Society at Malegaon. On 25 July 2006, one Sunil Govind Bankar, serving with Sonaj Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) at Nashik alleging that the appellant and another accused (Mr. Kasar) demanded a bribe for preparing an audit report. The ACB laid a trap, and the appellant was caught accepting tainted currency notes. The trial court convicted the appellant. In appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the evidence. The complainant (PW-1) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The panch witness (PW-2) gave inconsistent testimony. The court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that mere recovery of tainted currency notes is not sufficient to convict under Section 7 or 13(1)(d) of the Act. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act arises only after demand and acceptance are proved. Since the prosecution failed to establish these essential ingredients, the conviction was set aside. The court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and set aside the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) - Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt before the presumption under Section 20 can be invoked. Mere recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused is insufficient to establish guilt. In the present case, the complainant turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, and the panch witness's testimony was inconsistent. 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 - Hostile Witness - Evidentiary Value - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) - When the complainant turns hostile and does not support the prosecution version, the testimony of other witnesses must be scrutinized with care. In this case, the panch witness's evidence was found to be unreliable and contradictory. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7, 12, and 13(1)(d) r/w 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 of all charges.
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
- Mere recovery of tainted currency notes is not sufficient to convict under Section 7 or 13(1)(d) of the Act
