Case Note & Summary
The appellant, G B Jagadeesh, was convicted by the Special Judge, Davanagere, in Spl.C.(Lokayukta) No.9/2007 for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.2,000 for the offence under Section 7, and one year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000 for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2). The case arose from an allegation that on 16.03.2007, the appellant, working as an Educational Co-ordinator, demanded and accepted Rs.2,000 as illegal gratification from the complainant, M. Sreenivasamurthy, to show official favour. The complainant lodged a complaint with the Lokayukta police, leading to a trap. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the evidence of the complainant and the panch witness. On appeal, the High Court of Karnataka examined the evidence and found that the complainant and the panch witness were interested witnesses, and their testimony lacked corroboration. The court noted that the trap proceedings were not conducted in a fair manner, and the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act was rebutted by the accused. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) - The court examined whether the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused, a public servant. The complainant and panch witness were interested witnesses, and their testimony lacked corroboration. The trap proceedings were not conducted in a fair manner, and the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Held that the conviction was unsustainable and the accused was entitled to acquittal. (Paras 1-15) B) Evidence Act - Interested Witnesses - Corroboration - The court held that the evidence of the complainant and the panch witness, being interested witnesses, required independent corroboration. In the absence of such corroboration, their testimony could not be relied upon to convict the accused. (Paras 10-15) C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Rebuttable Presumption - The court noted that the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act is rebuttable. In this case, the accused successfully rebutted the presumption by showing that the prosecution evidence was unreliable. (Paras 12-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in the absence of credible evidence regarding demand and acceptance of bribe.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.03.2011 passed by the Special Judge, Davanagere, in Spl.C.(Lokayukta) No.9/2007 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is rebuttable
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Evidence of interested witnesses requires corroboration
- Trap proceedings must be conducted with independent witnesses
