Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment of the Special Judge, Pune, acquitting the respondent-accused Madhukar Dharmaji Kale of offences under Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution case was that the complainant Narayandas Bhivraj Unecha, who ran a grocery and fair-price shop, received a notice from the Pune Municipal Corporation regarding running the shop without a licence. Two days later, the accused, a public servant, allegedly went to the complainant's shop and asked him to meet at his office, where he demanded a bribe of Rs. 500 to settle the matter. The complainant lodged a complaint, and a trap was laid. The trap witness (panch) testified that the accused accepted the bribe money. However, the trial court acquitted the accused, finding the trap witness unreliable and noting that the complainant had turned hostile. The High Court, in appeal, examined 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 trap witness was a stock witness and his testimony was not corroborated by independent evidence. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act was held not to arise as the foundational facts of demand and acceptance were not established. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d), 20 - Acquittal upheld where trap witness was unreliable and there was no independent corroboration of demand and acceptance - Held that the presumption under Section 20 does not arise unless demand and acceptance are proved, and the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused for offences under Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was justified given the evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe and the presumption under Section 20 of the Act.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is rebuttable
- standard of proof for demand and acceptance of bribe
- credibility of trap witnesses
- necessity of corroboration in trap cases
