Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Pandharinath Shelke, was a Rationing Officer at the Rationing Office, Kurla. He was convicted by the Special Judge, Greater Bombay in Special Case No.24 of 1989 under Section 7 and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000 for each offence. The prosecution alleged that on 28/9/1988, the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.400 as a monthly instalment from the complainant, who owned a ration shop. The appellant challenged the conviction in the High Court. The court found that the only witness to the demand and acceptance of the bribe was the complainant himself, who was an interested witness. The trap witnesses did not support the prosecution case. The court held that in the absence of independent corroboration, the conviction could not be sustained. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Section 7 and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Conviction based solely on testimony of complainant who was an interested witness - Held that conviction cannot be sustained without independent corroboration of demand and acceptance of bribe - Appeal allowed, conviction set aside (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 7 and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable based on the testimony of an interested trap witness without independent corroboration.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted.
Law Points
- Conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act requires corroboration of trap witness testimony
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Interested witness testimony requires independent corroboration
