Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two criminal appeals filed by the original accused nos. 1 and 2 against their conviction by the Special Judge, Greater Bombay, in Special Case No. 49/86 for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code. The appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 400 each. The prosecution case was that the accused, who were working at an Octroi Naka, demanded and accepted a bribe from the complainant, a businessman, for allowing the transport of red oxide (geru) without proper documentation. The complainant alleged that when he was transporting the goods in his tempo, he was asked to fill a form and describe the contents, and one person in the cabin told him to pay a bribe. However, the evidence of the complainant and the panch witness was found to be inconsistent and lacking credibility. The panch witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. The 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 presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act can only be invoked if the foundational facts of demand and acceptance are established. Since the prosecution failed to do so, the conviction was unsustainable. The court allowed both appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 161 - The prosecution failed to prove that the accused demanded and accepted bribe from the complainant. The evidence of the complainant and panch witness was inconsistent and unreliable. The court held that the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Act does not arise unless demand and acceptance are proved. Conviction set aside and accused acquitted. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence - Credibility of Witnesses - Contradictions and Inconsistencies - The complainant's testimony was found to be contradictory and not corroborated by independent witnesses. The panch witness turned hostile. The court held that in the absence of reliable evidence, the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code is sustainable in the absence of proof of demand and acceptance of bribe.
Final Decision
Both appeals allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted.
Law Points
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Presumption under Section 4(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act arises only when demand and acceptance are proved
- Benefit of doubt to accused in absence of credible evidence
