Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Deepak Ramgirwar and Vinayak Wakhre, were convicted by the Special Judge, Wardha for offences under Section 161 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000 on each count. The prosecution case was that the complainant, Ramsingh, approached the accused for a solvency certificate to secure the release of his cousin Dashrath from police custody. Accused No.1 Vinayak, a Naib Tahsildar, demanded Rs. 200, later settled at Rs. 150, and directed the complainant to pay the amount to accused No.2 Deepak, a clerk. A trap was laid on 05.09.1988, and the marked currency notes were recovered from accused No.2. The trial court convicted both accused. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found that the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and the panch witnesses did not support the prosecution. The demand of bribe was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Additionally, the sanction for prosecution under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not validly proved as the sanctioning authority was not examined and the sanction order did not specify the offence. The High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable and allowed the appeals, setting aside the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Demand of Bribe - Section 161 IPC, Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - The prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt as the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and the trap witnesses did not support the prosecution case - Held that the conviction cannot be sustained (Paras 1-10). B) Criminal Procedure - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 6 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - The sanction order was not proved by examining the sanctioning authority, and the sanction was invalid as it did not specify the offence - Held that the trial is vitiated for want of valid sanction (Paras 11-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution under Section 6 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1947 is mandatory
- Demand of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Inconsistencies in prosecution evidence lead to benefit of doubt
