Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Jawansingh Ramsingh Gaud (a Sub-Inspector of Police) and Umesh Manohar Ambre (a private individual), were convicted by the Special Judge for Greater Mumbai under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant no.1 was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) and sentenced to one year RI and fine of Rs.2,000 on each count. The appellant no.2 was convicted under Section 12 read with Section 7 and sentenced to one year RI and fine of Rs.2,000. The prosecution alleged that the appellant no.1 demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.5,000 from one George Williams to return 138 passports seized in a criminal case. The appellant no.2 acted as an intermediary. The trap was laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, and the bribe money was allegedly recovered from the appellant no.1. The trial court convicted the appellants. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of the trap witness (PW-1), who was found to be a stock witness for the ACB and whose evidence was not corroborated by any independent witness. The panch witness (PW-2) turned hostile. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The recovery of money alone was insufficient. The court also noted that the appellant no.1 had no motive to demand a bribe as the passports were already seized and the matter was sub judice. The court set aside the conviction and acquitted both appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Trap Witness Credibility - Stock Witness - Conviction under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The prosecution's case rested solely on the testimony of a trap witness who was found to be a stock witness and whose evidence was not corroborated by independent witnesses or circumstances - Held that conviction based on such unreliable evidence cannot be sustained and the appellants are entitled to acquittal (Paras 1-31).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable when the sole trap witness is unreliable and the evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe is not corroborated.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Trap witness credibility
- Stock witness
- Corroboration of evidence
- Demand and acceptance of bribe
- Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act
- Section 12 Prevention of Corruption Act
