Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Hanumant Yadavrao Pund, a clerk at the District Employment Exchange, Jalna, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Jalna on 21.11.2000 in Special Case No. 21 of 1994 for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and one year respectively, with fines. The complainant, Uddhav Dagduji Sonule (PW1), alleged that on 14.7.1994, he met the accused regarding non-receipt of call letters for employment, and the accused demanded Rs.400 for including his name in a list for a Safai Kamgar post at State Bank of Hyderabad. A trap was laid on 15.7.1994, and the accused was caught accepting the bribe. However, during trial, the complainant gave contradictory statements, and the panch witnesses (PW2 and PW3) turned hostile. The trial court convicted the accused 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 testimony was inconsistent regarding the demand, and the trap witnesses did not support the prosecution case. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 arises only after demand and acceptance are proved, and since the prosecution failed to do so, the conviction was unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused was acquitted. The bail bonds were discharged.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - Presumption under Section 20 - The prosecution must first prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt before the presumption under Section 20 can be invoked. In the present case, the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and the trap witnesses turned hostile, leading to failure to prove demand and acceptance. Held that the conviction cannot be sustained and the accused is entitled to acquittal (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused beyond reasonable doubt to sustain conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted. Bail bonds discharged.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 arises only after demand and acceptance are proved
- Burden of proof on prosecution to establish demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt
- Inconsistencies in prosecution evidence lead to benefit of doubt
