Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sudhir Arjun Keer, was convicted by the Special Judge for CBI, Greater Mumbai, in CBI Spl. Case No. 51 of 2004 for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.2,500. The prosecution alleged that on 3rd June 2003, one Abdul Pasha approached the Anti Corruption Bureau reporting that the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.10,000 for disbursing an informer reward sanctioned by the Customs department. A trap was laid on 4th June 2003, and the complainant was sent with a concealed micro cassette recorder. Upon hearing the tape, it transpired that the complainant met PW5 Y.D. Banga and discussed the reward, but when he approached the appellant, there was no discussion about the reward. The demand of bribe was allegedly confirmed, but no verification panchnama was drawn. The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court found that the trap witnesses were not independent and the verification panchnama was not drawn, which is a serious lacuna. The court held that mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to prove corruption. The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The prosecution failed to prove that the appellant demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.10,000 from the complainant for disbursing reward amount - The trap witnesses were not independent and the verification panchnama was not drawn - Held that the conviction is unsustainable and the appellant is entitled to acquittal (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 in law.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted.
Law Points
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Trap witness must be independent
- Verification panchnama is essential
- Mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient
