Case Note & Summary
The appellant, a policeman attached to the Highway Security Squad, was convicted by the Special Judge, Satara, for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution case was that the appellant, along with other police officers, used to stop vehicles on National Highway No.4 and demand illegal gratification from drivers to avoid prosecution. Based on complaints, the Anti Corruption Bureau laid a trap on 10th October 2000. The complainant, a truck driver, alleged that the appellant demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.500. The trial court convicted the appellant. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence of the complainant and the panch witnesses. The court found material contradictions and inconsistencies in their testimonies regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe. The complainant admitted that he had not mentioned the demand in his complaint to the ACB. The panch witness also gave conflicting versions. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not be invoked. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(2) - Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt before the presumption under Section 20 can be invoked. In the absence of credible evidence of demand, the conviction cannot be sustained. (Paras 1-22) B) Criminal Law - Trap Witness - Credibility - The evidence of a trap witness must be scrutinized with care. Inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of the complainant and panch witnesses regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe render the prosecution case doubtful. (Paras 10-18) C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Applicability - The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 that a public servant who accepts gratification is presumed to have done so as a motive or reward for an official act, arises only after the prosecution establishes the foundational fact of demand and acceptance. (Paras 19-22)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in law when the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 arises only after demand and acceptance are proved
- Standard of proof in corruption cases
- Appreciation of evidence in trap cases
