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, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine. The case arose from a trap laid by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) on 25 July 2006, based on a complaint by Sunil Govind Bankar, an employee of Sonaj Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., alleging that the appellant, then working as a clerk/auditor in the office of the District Sub Auditor, demanded a bribe for preparing an audit report. The ACB conducted a pre-trap panchnama and the raiding party proceeded to the office. According to the prosecution, the complainant and a panch witness went to the office of accused No.1 Mr. Kasar, who directed the complainant to hand over the bribe amount to the appellant, who accepted it and placed it in his hip pocket. The appellant was convicted by the trial court. In appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found that the testimony of the complainant and the panch witness was shaky and unreliable. The court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt. Without proof of demand and acceptance, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not be invoked. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
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 bribe beyond reasonable doubt before the presumption under Section 20 can be raised. In the present case, the evidence of the complainant and panch witness was found to be shaky and unreliable, and the prosecution failed to establish the demand and acceptance. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted. (Paras 1-10) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Applicability - The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 arises only when the prosecution has proved that the accused accepted or obtained any gratification. If the evidence of acceptance is not credible, the presumption cannot be invoked. (Paras 8-10)
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 evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe is unreliable and the presumption under Section 20 cannot be invoked.
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 establish demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt
- Acquittal if evidence of demand and acceptance is shaky or unreliable
