Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rajesh s/o Roopchand Motghare, was a peon with Nagpur Municipal Corporation posted at octroi check post No.10, Wadi. On 20/8/2002, Dilip, servant of complainant Vilas, was passing the check post on a motorcycle carrying two VCDs. The appellant detained the goods suspecting octroi was payable. The complainant arrived and after negotiation, the appellant allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs.1,000 to release the goods without levy. The complainant paid Rs.100 on 20/8/2002 and agreed to pay Rs.900 the next day. The complainant then lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) on the same day. A trap was laid on 21/8/2002, and the appellant was caught accepting Rs.900. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the complainant and panch witnesses was contradictory and unreliable. The panch witnesses did not support the prosecution case fully. The trap was not properly conducted, and the presumption under Section 20 of the Act was rebutted. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; presumption under Section 20 arises only after such proof. In this case, the evidence of the complainant and panch witnesses was found unreliable and contradictory, and the trap was not properly conducted. Held that the conviction was not sustainable (Paras 1-18). B) Evidence Law - Trap Witnesses - Corroboration - The testimony of trap witnesses, being interested witnesses, requires independent corroboration. The panch witnesses in this case did not support the prosecution case fully, and their evidence was inconsistent. Held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 10-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is rebuttable
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Evidence of trap witnesses must be corroborated
- Mere recovery of tainted currency is not sufficient to prove acceptance
