Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Aarif Ali Yusuf Ali Sayyad, was convicted by the Special Judge, Dhule, for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to imprisonment and fine. The prosecution case was that the appellant, a public servant, demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 5,000 from the complainant, Biharilal Agrawal, to allow a truck carrying wheat to pass without detention. The complainant approached the ACB, and a trap was laid. The appellant was caught with tainted money. However, during trial, the complainant and panch witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the evidence of the investigating officer and the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. On appeal, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the complainant and panch witnesses did not corroborate the demand, and the recovery of money alone was insufficient to sustain the conviction. The court also observed that the presumption under Section 20 could not be invoked without proof of demand. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) - Proof - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. Mere recovery of tainted money from the accused is not sufficient to draw presumption under Section 20 unless demand is established. In the absence of credible evidence of demand, the accused is entitled to acquittal. (Paras 12-18) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Applicability - The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act arises only when the prosecution proves that the accused accepted or obtained gratification. If the demand itself is not proved, the presumption cannot be invoked. (Paras 15-16) C) Evidence - Trap Witness - Credibility - The testimony of a trap witness must be scrutinized with care. In this case, the complainant and panch witnesses turned hostile, and the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case, leading to doubt on the veracity of the trap. (Paras 10-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 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
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act arises only after demand is proved
- Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient for conviction
