Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order dated 31.10.2001 passed by the Special Judge, Thane, in Special Case No.6 of 1992, acquitting the respondents Pradeep Vishwasrao Jadhav (Assistant Charity Commissioner) and Mrs. Pramila Harischandra Sabale (Senior Clerk) for offences under Sections 7, 12 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case arose from a complaint by PW1 Bhanudas Dhotre, who alleged that the respondents demanded a bribe of Rs.500 (Rs.200 for respondent No.2 and Rs.300 for respondent No.1) for expediting the registration of his organization 'Navi Mumbai Nagrik Sangharsha Samiti'. The prosecution claimed that on 14.1.1991, respondent No.2 demanded the bribe, and on 18.1.1991, respondent No.1 confirmed the demand. A trap was laid on 21.1.1991, and the bribe amount was allegedly accepted by respondent No.2. The trial court acquitted the respondents, finding the evidence of the trap witness (PW1) unreliable and lacking corroboration. The High Court, in appeal, upheld the acquittal, noting that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The court observed that the trap witness's testimony was inconsistent and not supported by independent witnesses, and the presumption under Section 20 of the Act was rebutted by the defence. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - Acquittal upheld - The prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt as the trap witness (PW1) was unreliable and his testimony was not corroborated by independent witnesses. The presumption under Section 20 was rebutted by the defence. (Paras 1-9) B) Evidence Act - Credibility of Witness - Trap Witness - The court held that the testimony of a trap witness must be scrutinized with care and caution, and if found unreliable, cannot form the basis of conviction without corroboration. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondents for offences under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was justified given the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Acquittal of respondents upheld.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is rebuttable
- Standard of proof in criminal cases
- Credibility of trap witness
- Necessity of corroboration
