Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Vasant Domaji Likhar, was convicted by the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d). He was an Industries Inspector at the District Industries Centre (DIC), Nagpur. The complainant, Prashant Rajendra Wankhede, proprietor of Golden Bakery, sought permanent registration for his bakery. The appellant allegedly demanded Rs.200 as bribe to expedite the work. The complainant reported the matter to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, and a trap was laid on 12/11/1990. The trap succeeded, and the appellant was caught accepting the bribe money. The trial court convicted the appellant, relying on the evidence of the complainant and the panch witness (PW2), and applied the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. The appellant appealed to the High Court. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the panch witness (PW2) gave contradictory statements regarding the time of the trap and the handing over of money. The court noted that the panch witness initially stated that the trap occurred at 11:30 AM but later said it was at 12:30 PM. There was also inconsistency about whether the money was handed over to the appellant or kept on the table. The court held that the evidence of the trap witness was unreliable and lacked corroboration. The court further held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 was rebutted by the appellant through the inconsistencies in the prosecution case. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d), 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The appellant, an Industries Inspector, was convicted for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.200 from a complainant for expediting permanent registration of a bakery. The court held that the evidence of the trap witness (panch witness) was unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration. The presumption under Section 20 was rebutted as the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed and conviction set aside. (Paras 1-14) B) Evidence Law - Trap Witness - Credibility - The court found that the panch witness (PW2) gave contradictory statements regarding the time of the trap and the handing over of money. His evidence was not corroborated by independent witnesses or documentary evidence. The court held that the testimony of a trap witness must be scrutinized with care and if found unreliable, cannot form the basis of conviction. (Paras 8-12) C) Criminal Law - Presumption under Section 20 - Rebuttal - The court held that the presumption of corruption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is rebuttable. In this case, the appellant successfully rebutted the presumption by showing that the prosecution evidence was inconsistent and that the demand and acceptance were not proved. The court emphasized that the burden on the accused is not as heavy as on the prosecution and can be discharged by preponderance of probabilities. (Paras 13-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable based on the evidence of a trap witness and the presumption under Section 20 of the Act.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 29/11/2002 passed by the Special Court in Special Case No.9 of 1993 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is rebuttable
- Standard of proof in criminal cases is beyond reasonable doubt
- Evidence of trap witness requires corroboration
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved independently
