Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Laxman s/o Narayan Kale, a government servant working with Nagpur Improvement Trust, was convicted by the Special Judge for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.1,000 from the complainant, Laxman Varluji Chokhandre, for executing a registered lease deed. The complainant alleged that the appellant initially demanded Rs.2,000, later settled at Rs.1,000. A trap was laid on 6.5.1992, and the appellant was caught red-handed. The trial court convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found material inconsistencies. The complainant's testimony was not corroborated by independent witnesses; the panch witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. The court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not be invoked without proof of demand. Consequently, 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) read with 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 complainant's testimony was inconsistent and unsupported by independent witnesses, and the panch witness turned hostile - Held that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal (Paras 1-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.1,000 from the complainant for executing a registered lease deed.
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
- Inconsistencies in prosecution evidence lead to benefit of doubt
