Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Bawasingh Puransingh Khaira, was convicted by the Special Judge of Greater Bombay in Special Case No. 24/89 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.200 from the complainant, Ishwarlal Jivraj, who owned a ration shop. The prosecution alleged that on 28th September 1988, the appellant demanded Rs.200 for providing the full quota of kerosene, and on 6th October 1988, he accepted the bribe. The appellant challenged the conviction in the Bombay High Court. The court examined the evidence and found inconsistencies in the testimonies of the complainant and the panch witness regarding the demand and acceptance. The court also noted that the sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Act was not properly proved. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Section 7, Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The appellant was convicted for demanding and accepting Rs.200 as bribe for providing full quota of kerosene. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant and panch witness. The conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Law - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The court noted that the sanction for prosecution was not properly proved, which is a mandatory requirement. The absence of valid sanction vitiates the trial. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the said Act is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. Appellant acquitted.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is mandatory
- Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential
- Benefit of doubt must be given to accused in case of inconsistent evidence
