Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Bhaskar Khashaba Yewle, was a Bill Collector in the office of Tahasildar Encroachment. He was convicted by the Special Judge, Greater Bombay in Special Case No. 75 of 1990 for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and one year respectively, with fines. The complainant, Hariprasad Sharma, had applied for a 'No Objection Certificate' to obtain an electric connection for his premises, which was an unauthorised construction. The appellant was responsible for surveying such constructions and making a report. The prosecution alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 500/- to issue the NOC, and after negotiation, the amount was reduced to Rs. 300/-. A trap was laid, and the appellant was caught accepting the tainted money. The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the evidence of demand and acceptance was inconsistent and unreliable. The High Court examined the testimonies of the complainant (PW1) and the panch witness (PW2) and found material contradictions regarding the time of demand, the person who made the demand, and the manner of acceptance. The court noted that the complainant's version was not corroborated by the panch witness, and the recovery of money alone, without proof of demand, could not sustain the conviction. The court also observed that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act was rebutted by the appellant's plausible explanation that the money was forcibly thrust into his pocket. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d) - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient. Inconsistent testimony of complainant and panch witness regarding the alleged demand creates reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to acquittal. (Paras 1-10) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Rebuttable Presumption - The presumption under Section 20 of the Act that the accused accepted gratification as a motive or reward is rebuttable. Where the accused offers a plausible explanation and the prosecution evidence is shaky, the presumption stands rebutted. (Paras 8-10) C) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Inconsistencies in Testimony - Where the complainant and the panch witness give contradictory versions regarding the time, place, and manner of demand of bribe, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. (Paras 5-7)
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 in law when the evidence of demand and acceptance is inconsistent and the presumption under Section 20 is rebutted.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is rebuttable
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Inconsistent evidence of complainant and panch witness creates doubt
- Recovery of tainted money alone is insufficient to prove corruption
