Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Dadaji Fakroji Kharkar, was an Assistant Grader at a Cotton Federation Centre. He was convicted by the Special Judge, Biloli, under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 500 from the complainant, Digamber Gopalrao Solunke, a cotton grower, to give priority in grading and weighing his cotton. The complainant alleged that on 15th March 1999, the accused demanded Rs. 500, and a trap was laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau on the same day. The trap witness (panch) claimed that the accused accepted the bribe and kept it in his pocket. However, the High Court found that the trap witness was unreliable as he had given contradictory statements and was an interested witness. The court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant himself turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not be invoked without proof of demand and acceptance. 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) read with Section 20 - Presumption - The prosecution must first prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt before the presumption under Section 20 can be invoked. In the absence of credible evidence of demand and acceptance, the accused is entitled to acquittal. (Paras 7-10) B) Evidence Act - Interested Witness - Trap Witness - Corroboration - A trap witness is an interested witness whose testimony requires independent corroboration. The court must scrutinize such evidence with caution. (Para 8) C) Criminal Law - Standard of Proof - Beyond Reasonable Doubt - The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any reasonable doubt, the benefit must go to the accused. (Para 10)
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 trap witness is unreliable and the demand and acceptance of bribe are not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 6th November 2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli in Special Case (ACB) No.3 of 1999 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Fine, if paid, be refunded to the appellant.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 arises only when demand and acceptance are proved
- Standard of proof in criminal cases is beyond reasonable doubt
- Evidence of interested witnesses requires corroboration
- Trap witness is an interested witness
