Case Note & Summary
The appellant, M.C. Manjunatha, was convicted by the Principal Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Mysore, in Special Case No. 69/2004 for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to two years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. The appellant, who was working as a First Division Assistant at Rangayana, Mysore, was alleged to have demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 500/- from the complainant for issuing a caste certificate. The prosecution case was that the complainant approached the accused for a caste certificate, and the accused demanded Rs. 500/- as bribe. The complainant lodged a complaint with the Lokayukta Police, who laid a trap. The trap was successful, and the accused was caught red-handed accepting the bribe money. The trial court convicted the accused based on the evidence of the complainant and trap witnesses. The appellant challenged the conviction in the High Court. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution had failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The trap witnesses were not independent, and their evidence was not credible. The seizure mahazar contained discrepancies, and material witnesses were not examined. The High Court held that the conviction was not sustainable and allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitting the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused beyond reasonable doubt - The trap witnesses were not independent and their evidence was not credible - The seizure mahazar contained discrepancies and material witnesses were not examined - Held that the conviction was not sustainable and the appellant was entitled to acquittal (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant/accused demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 500/- for issuing a caste certificate, and whether the conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence dated 26.06.2010 passed by Prl. Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Mysore in Special Case No. 69/2004 are set aside. Appellant/accused is acquitted of offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Law Points
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Trap witnesses must be independent and credible
- Discrepancies in seizure mahazar and non-examination of material witnesses lead to acquittal
- Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act require strict proof of demand and acceptance
