Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Jaysing Nayrana Bidgar, was convicted by the Special Judge, Pune, for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and one year respectively. The prosecution case was that the appellant, a public servant, demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 500 from the complainant, Digambar Bajirao Borade, to facilitate membership of the complainant's wife in a cooperative housing society. The complainant alleged that the appellant, as Chairman of the society, demanded the bribe for processing the membership application. A trap was laid, and the appellant was caught accepting the tainted money. However, during trial, the complainant gave inconsistent testimony, and the panch witnesses turned hostile. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant's version was not corroborated by independent witnesses, and the trap witnesses did not support the prosecution. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 does not arise unless demand is proved. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) - Proof of Demand - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. Mere recovery of tainted money from the accused is insufficient to draw presumption under Section 20 unless demand is established. In this case, the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and uncorroborated, and the trap witnesses turned hostile. Held that the conviction was unsustainable (Paras 1-19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable when the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 arises only when demand and acceptance are proved
- Standard of proof in corruption cases
- Necessity of corroboration to trap witness testimony
