Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Vinod s/o Savalaram Kanadkhedkar, was a junior clerk in the Tahsil office, Nanded. He was convicted by the Special Judge, Nanded in Special (ACB) Case No.2 of 1994 for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and rigorous imprisonment for one year respectively, with fines. The prosecution case was that on 12th September 1993, the complainant Shivram's brothers-in-law were arrested and taken to the Tahsil office. The appellant allegedly demanded Rs.300 for releasing them on bail. On 13th September, the complainant paid Rs.100 and Madhukar was released. On 14th September, the complainant lodged a report with the ACB, and a trap was arranged. The trap was successful, and currency notes were recovered from the appellant. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of the complainant (PW1) and the panch witness (PW2). The court noted that the complainant's version was inconsistent with the panch witness, who did not support the prosecution. The panch witness stated that the appellant did not demand money and that the complainant thrust the money into the appellant's pocket. The court also noted that the complainant had a motive to implicate the appellant due to previous enmity. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act was rebutted by the appellant. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(2) - Presumption under Section 20 - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; the presumption under Section 20 is rebuttable and arises only after demand and acceptance are proved. In this case, the complainant's testimony was found unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration, and the independent panch witness did not support the prosecution. Held that the conviction was unsustainable and the appellant was entitled to acquittal. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Act - Trap Case - Credibility of Complainant - The complainant in a trap case is an interested witness and his testimony requires careful scrutiny and corroboration. The court found the complainant's version inconsistent with the panch witness and other evidence, leading to doubt about the demand and acceptance. Held that the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable when the complainant's testimony is unreliable and the demand and acceptance of bribe are not proved 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 is rebuttable
- Demand and acceptance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Complainant's testimony must be corroborated in trap cases
- Acquittal if prosecution fails to prove demand
