Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to two criminal appeals filed by the original accused against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Special ACB Case No. 21/1997 on 29.07.2004. The appellants were convicted for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each for Section 7, and rigorous imprisonment of four years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- each for Section 13(1)(d), with default sentences. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appeals were filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The prosecution case was that the appellants, who were public servants, demanded and accepted a bribe from the complainant for doing an official favour. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the PC Act was not validly obtained, which is a mandatory requirement. Additionally, the trap witnesses were interested witnesses and their testimony was not reliable. The prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellants, giving them the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 - Mandatory Requirement - The trial court convicted the appellants without valid sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the PC Act, which is a condition precedent for taking cognizance. The High Court held that absence of valid sanction vitiates the trial and the conviction cannot be sustained. (Paras 10-15) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) - Proof - The prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The trap witnesses were interested witnesses and their testimony was unreliable. The High Court held that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. (Paras 16-25) C) Evidence Act - Trap Witnesses - Credibility - Trap witnesses are considered interested witnesses and their testimony requires corroboration. The High Court found that the evidence of the trap witnesses was not corroborated by independent evidence, and hence, the conviction was set aside. (Paras 20-22)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in law?
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of PC Act is mandatory
- Failure to prove demand and acceptance of bribe
- Trap witnesses are interested witnesses
- Benefit of doubt to accused
