Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Manoj Shankar Deshpande, a public servant working as an Assistant in the Fisheries Department, was convicted by the Special Judge, Pune, under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 500 from the complainant, Baban Maruti Bamble, to process a grant application for a fishing cooperative society. The complainant had approached the appellant for a grant, and the appellant allegedly demanded Rs. 500 as illegal gratification. The complainant lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau, and a trap was laid. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the appellant's possession. The trial court convicted the appellant, and he appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of the complainant, trap witnesses, and the investigating officer. The court found that the prosecution had proved the demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The recovery of the tainted money from the appellant's pocket was corroborated by independent witnesses. The appellant's defence that he was falsely implicated was not supported by evidence. The court upheld the conviction and sentence, noting that the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act applied and was not rebutted. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) - Conviction upheld - The appellant, a public servant, demanded and accepted Rs. 500 from the complainant for processing a grant application. The prosecution proved demand through oral testimony and acceptance through recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant's possession. The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act was invoked. The court held that the evidence of the complainant and trap witnesses was credible and corroborated, and the defence of false implication was not established. (Paras 1-10) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Burden on accused - The court held that once demand and acceptance are proved, the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act arises that the accused accepted the gratification as a motive or reward for doing a public duty. The accused failed to rebut this presumption. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable based on the evidence of demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe money.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge, Pune in Special Case No. 14 of 2002 are upheld.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act
- Demand and acceptance of bribe
- Recovery of tainted currency notes
- Standard of proof in corruption cases
