Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sharad Manga Tayade, a retired government servant, was convicted by the Special Judge (ACB), Nanded in Special (ACB) Case No.7 of 2015 for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fines. The case arose from a complaint by Sachin Balaji Chavan, who alleged that the appellant, as Executive Engineer in Zilla Parishad, Nanded, demanded a bribe of Rs.4,000 (2% of the bill amount) to sanction payment for a cement concrete road construction. The complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) on 30 September 2014, leading to a trap where the appellant allegedly accepted Rs.3,000. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the evidence of the complainant, panch witnesses, and the anthracene powder test. On appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the evidence and found that the trap witness (PW-2) was declared hostile and did not support the prosecution. The complainant's testimony was inconsistent regarding the demand and acceptance. The court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act did not arise or was rebutted by the appellant's explanation that the money was forcibly thrust into his pocket. 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) - 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 trap witness (PW-2) was declared hostile and his evidence was unreliable; the complainant's testimony was contradictory regarding demand. Held that the conviction was unsustainable as the foundational facts were not established (Paras 10-15). B) Evidence Act - Trap Witness - Credibility - A trap witness is an interested witness whose testimony requires independent corroboration. The court found that the panch witness (PW-2) turned hostile and his evidence did not support the prosecution case, weakening the trap evidence (Paras 11-13). C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Rebuttable Presumption - The presumption of corrupt intention under Section 20 of the PC Act can be rebutted by the accused. In this case, the appellant explained that the money was forcibly thrust into his pocket, and the prosecution failed to prove demand. Held that the presumption did not arise or was rebutted (Paras 14-15).
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 based on the evidence of a trap witness and the anthracene powder test.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act is rebuttable
- Demand and acceptance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Trap witness is an interested witness requiring corroboration
- Anthracene powder test alone insufficient to prove acceptance
