Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Balkrishna Bhau Desai, a Sectional Engineer in the Public Works Department, was convicted by the Special Judge, Baramati for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and another engineer demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,00,000 from a government contractor, Bharat Gulabrao RajeBhosale, for clearing his final bill. After negotiations, the demand was reduced to Rs. 84,000, and the complainant paid Rs. 20,000 to the appellant. A trap was laid, and the appellant was caught accepting the remaining bribe amount. The trial court convicted the appellant, sentencing him to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine. On appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of the trap witness (PW-1) and the panch witness (PW-2). The court found that the trap witness's testimony was unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration. The panch witness turned hostile, and the recovery of tainted money alone could not prove demand or acceptance. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand of Bribe - Proof - Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. Mere recovery of tainted money from the accused is insufficient to establish acceptance, especially when the trap witness is unreliable and there is no independent corroboration. Held that the conviction cannot be sustained (Paras 1-24).
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 recovery of tainted money without independent corroboration.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted.
Law Points
- Demand of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Trap witness testimony requires corroboration
- Mere recovery of tainted money not sufficient to prove acceptance
- Section 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
