Case Note & Summary
The appellant, C. Krishnaiah, was accused no. 2 in a corruption case before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysore, in Spl. Case No. 19/2007. He was a Second Division Assistant in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-Division. The prosecution alleged that the complainant, K. Ramaswamy (PW-1), applied for conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural purpose. Accused no. 1 (the Assistant Commissioner) demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,50,000 and received Rs. 30,000 initially. The complainant approached the Lokayukta Police, who laid a trap on 21.02.2000. On that day, when PW-1 brought Rs. 20,000, accused no. 1 directed him to hand the money to accused no. 2 (the appellant). PW-1 did so, and the appellant was caught with the tainted money. The trial court acquitted the appellant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but convicted him under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, sentencing him to one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000. The appellant appealed against this conviction. The High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of PW-1 and the trap witnesses. It found that PW-1's evidence regarding demand by the appellant was inconsistent and unreliable. The complainant initially stated that the demand was made by accused no. 1, and there was no clear evidence that the appellant demanded or accepted the bribe. The phenolphthalein test only proved that the appellant handled the money, but not that he demanded or accepted it as a bribe. The court noted that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not be invoked because the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance. The High Court held that the trial court's conviction was based on surmises and not on legal proof. 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), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to sustain conviction under Section 13(1)(d) - Held that the trial court erred in convicting the appellant without establishing demand and acceptance (Paras 10-15). B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Section 20 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Presumption of corrupt intention arises only if demand and acceptance are proved - In the absence of proof of demand, the presumption under Section 20 cannot be invoked - Held that the trial court wrongly applied the presumption (Paras 12-14). C) Criminal Law - Trap Case - Credibility of Trap Witnesses - The evidence of trap witnesses must be scrutinized carefully; if the complainant's testimony is unreliable and the trap witnesses are interested, conviction cannot be based solely on recovery - Held that the prosecution case suffered from material contradictions and omissions (Paras 8-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable when the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence passed by the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysore in Spl. Case No.19/2007 dated 27.12.2010 are set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient
- presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act arises only if demand and acceptance are proved
- acquittal under Section 7 does not automatically lead to acquittal under Section 13(1)(d) but same standard of proof applies
