Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shankar Balwant Malvankar, was a clerk/beat inspector with the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation. He was convicted by the Special Judge, Kalyan, for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with fine. The prosecution case was that the complainant, a building contractor, was constructing a building, and the appellant along with another accused demanded a bribe of Rs. 5,000 to allow the construction to proceed. A trap was laid, and the appellant was caught accepting the bribe. The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court re-appreciated the evidence and found that the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and unreliable. The panch witness turned hostile, and the recovery of tainted money alone was insufficient to prove corruption. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act could not be invoked without proof of demand. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d) - Proof of Demand - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to attract the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. In the absence of credible evidence of demand, the conviction cannot be sustained. (Paras 1-25) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Conditions for Raising Presumption - Section 20 - The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act can only be raised after the prosecution establishes the demand and acceptance of bribe. If the demand itself is not proved, the presumption does not arise. (Paras 20-25) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal against Conviction - Appreciation of Evidence - Sections 374, 386 CrPC - In an appeal against conviction, the appellate court must re-appreciate the evidence and interfere if the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The court found that the trial court's conclusion was based on surmises and conjectures. (Paras 1-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) 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. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
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
- Recovery of tainted money alone is insufficient to prove corruption
