Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Selvaraj Johnson Rodrigo, was convicted by the Special Judge, Mumbai, for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.500 from the complainant, Shaikh Jamshed, to reduce the bank guarantee amount from Rs.35,000 to Rs.25,000. The appellant was a Senior Accounts Officer at MTNL. The prosecution case relied on the complainant's testimony, a panch witness, and recovery of tainted money. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the complainant's testimony was unreliable and inconsistent. The panch witness did not support the prosecution. The court held that the demand and acceptance of bribe were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act was rebutted by the appellant's explanation that the money was a loan. 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), 13(1)(d) - Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt - The appellant, a Senior Accounts Officer, was convicted for demanding and accepting Rs.500 from the complainant to reduce bank guarantee. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt as the complainant's evidence was unreliable and lacked corroboration. The presumption under Section 20 was rebutted by the appellant's explanation. (Paras 1-30) B) Evidence Law - Trap Witness - Credibility - Corroboration - The complainant, being a trap witness, his testimony required independent corroboration. The court found his evidence inconsistent and not trustworthy, and the panch witness did not support the prosecution case. Hence, the conviction was set aside. (Paras 15-25) C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Rebuttal - The presumption of corruption under Section 20 is rebuttable. The appellant's explanation that the money was received as a loan was found plausible, and the prosecution did not disprove it. Therefore, the presumption stood rebutted. (Paras 26-30)
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 in law.
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 is rebuttable
- Demand and acceptance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Evidence of trap witness requires corroboration
- Mere recovery of tainted money not sufficient to prove acceptance
