Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Prakash Babulal Pardeshi, was convicted by the Sessions Court, Nashik, in Special Case No.11 of 2012 for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each offence, with sentences to run concurrently. The case arose from an allegation that the appellant, a public servant, demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.10,000/- from an architect (the informant) for approving building plans submitted to the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC), Nashik. The architect complained to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) on 11th August 2010, and a trap was laid on 12th August 2010, resulting in the appellant's arrest. The prosecution examined four witnesses: the informant (PW1), a panch witness (PW2), the sanctioning authority (PW3), and the investigating officer (PW4), and marked 59 exhibits. The appellant challenged his conviction on multiple grounds, including that the demand for bribe on 11th August 2010 was not part of the charge, the trap proceedings were flawed, the panch witness was not independent, and the sanction for prosecution was invalid. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and that the panch witness was not a reliable independent witness. The recovery of tainted currency notes was not properly corroborated, and the sanction order was not valid. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Essential Ingredients - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of proof of demand, the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act cannot be invoked. The court held that the evidence of the complainant and panch witness was unreliable and the trap proceedings were not properly conducted, leading to acquittal. (Paras 7-15) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Trap Witnesses - Credibility - Section 7 - The testimony of trap witnesses must be scrutinized with care. Discrepancies in the pre-trap and post-trap panchnama, and the failure to examine independent witnesses, weaken the prosecution case. The court found that the panch witness was not independent and the recovery of tainted currency notes was not properly corroborated. (Paras 16-20) C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Validity - Section 19 - The sanction order must be valid and based on proper application of mind. The court noted that the sanctioning authority did not consider all relevant materials, rendering the sanction invalid. (Paras 21-23)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in law given the alleged failure 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 and acceptance are established
- Evidence of trap witnesses must be corroborated
- Sanction order must be valid
- Discrepancies in panchnama and recovery weaken prosecution case
