Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shriram s/o Timaji Chachane, was convicted by the Special Judge, Gondia in Special Case No. 3/93 for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs.500 for the first count, and rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.1,000 for the second count. The appellant was serving as an Assistant Clerk in Panchayat Samiti (Education Department), Tirora, and was in charge of processing teachers' bills. The complainant, Pandurang Kapse, a Head Master, had submitted a transfer T.A. bill of Rs.2,465. The complainant alleged that the appellant demanded Rs.500 to process the bill, later reduced to Rs.400, and that the complainant paid the amount on 25.8.1992 after a trap was laid by the Anti Corruption Bureau. The prosecution examined the complainant, panch witnesses, and investigating officers. The trial court convicted the appellant. In appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found that the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and not corroborated by independent witnesses. The panch witness Choudhari did not support the prosecution. The court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The recovery of tainted money alone, without proof of demand, was insufficient to sustain the conviction. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not be invoked without proof of demand and acceptance. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to attract the presumption under Section 20. The court held that where the complainant's testimony is inconsistent and the independent witnesses do not support the prosecution, the accused is entitled to acquittal (Paras 2-10). B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Applicability - Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The presumption of corruption under Section 20 arises only after the prosecution has proved that the accused accepted or obtained any gratification other than legal remuneration. In the absence of proof of demand, the presumption cannot be invoked (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable when the prosecution failed to prove demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 arises only after demand and acceptance are proved
- Burden of proof on prosecution to establish demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt
- Mere recovery of tainted money not sufficient to convict under Section 7 or 13(1)(d) without proof of demand
