Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shivananda Bankolli, was the Deputy Commissioner of Excise at Mysore. He was convicted by the Principal Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Mysore in Spl.Case No.140/2004 dated 29.10.2010 for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case arose from a complaint by one Sri. M. Mahadeva, who alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.500 for renewal of his bar license. A trap was laid by the Lokayukta Police, and the appellant was caught accepting the bribe. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to two years imprisonment under Section 7 and three years under Section 13(2) with fines. The appellant challenged the conviction in the High Court. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the panch witness, were interested and their testimony was not corroborated by independent witnesses. The court noted that the trap witnesses were not independent and the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The court also observed that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act was rebutted by the accused. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The appellant, a Deputy Commissioner of Excise, was convicted for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.500 from a complainant for renewal of a bar license. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt as the trap witnesses were interested and their evidence was not corroborated by independent witnesses. The conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted. (Paras 1-20) B) Evidence - Trap Witness - Credibility - The court observed that the trap witnesses, including the complainant and the panch witness, were not independent and their testimony was unreliable. The prosecution did not examine independent witnesses to corroborate the trap proceedings. Hence, the benefit of doubt was given to the accused. (Paras 15-20) C) Criminal Law - Presumption under Section 20 - Rebuttal - The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1984 is rebuttable. In this case, the accused successfully rebutted the presumption by showing that the prosecution evidence was weak and unreliable. (Paras 18-20)
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 when the prosecution witnesses are interested and the demand and acceptance of bribe are not satisfactorily proved.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.10.2010 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Mysore in Spl.Case No.140/2004 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The bail bonds stand cancelled.
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
- Trap witnesses must be independent and credible
- Benefit of doubt must be given to accused when prosecution fails to prove its case
