Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ravindra Mahadeo Kothamkar, a Tax Recovery Clerk with the Thane Municipal Corporation, was convicted by the Special Judge under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 500 from the complainant, Nandkumar Borade, to not demolish the complainant's unauthorized construction. The complainant alleged that on 5 June 1999, the appellant visited his house and demanded a bribe to allow the construction to continue. A trap was laid on 7 June 1999, and the appellant was caught accepting the tainted money. The trial court convicted the appellant, sentencing him to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of the trap witness (PW2), who was a panch witness but not an independent person as he was a colleague of the complainant. The court found that the trap witness's testimony was unreliable and lacked corroboration from independent sources. The court also noted that the complainant's testimony regarding the demand was inconsistent and not supported by other evidence. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act could not be invoked. 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 Beyond Reasonable Doubt - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of credible evidence of demand, mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to sustain conviction. (Paras 1-23) B) Evidence Law - Trap Witness - Credibility - The testimony of a trap witness who is not independent and has an interest in the outcome of the case requires careful scrutiny and corroboration. Failure to examine independent witnesses or provide corroboration weakens the prosecution case. (Paras 10-15) C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Applicability - The presumption that a public servant accepted gratification arises only when demand and acceptance are proved. If the evidence of demand is unreliable, the presumption cannot be invoked. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable based on the evidence of a trap witness who was not independent and whose testimony lacked corroboration.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Demand of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Trap witness must be independent and reliable
- Corroboration of trap witness testimony is essential
- Mere recovery of tainted money does not establish acceptance of bribe
- Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act arises only when demand and acceptance are proved
