Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to an appeal against conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellants, Manik Dajibaji Bhatkar (accused no.1) and Shrimant Dharma Bansode (accused no.2), were convicted by the Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Aurangabad, in Special Case No. 12 of 1994. Accused no.1 was convicted under Section 12 read with Section 7 for abetment of bribe, and accused no.2 was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) for demanding and accepting a bribe. The complainant, Ram Ugale, alleged that accused no.2 demanded a bribe of Rs.200 for issuing a caste certificate, and accused no.1 abetted the demand. A trap was laid, and the bribe money was allegedly recovered from accused no.2. The trial court convicted both accused. 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 testimony was inconsistent, and the panch witness did not support the prosecution. The court noted that the trap was not properly conducted and the recovery of money alone was insufficient. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted both appellants, giving them the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of credible evidence of demand, the conviction cannot be sustained. The court held that the evidence of the complainant and panch witness was inconsistent and unreliable, and the trap was not properly conducted. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - When the prosecution fails to prove the essential ingredients of the offence, the accused is entitled to acquittal. The court held that the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt and acquitted them. (Paras 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) r/w 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. Appellants acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act require proof of demand
- Section 12 r/w 7 requires abetment of demand
- Benefit of doubt when prosecution fails to prove demand
