Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arose from the acquittal of the respondent, a Talathi (Class III government servant), by the Special Judge for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case revolved around a trap laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau following a complaint that the accused demanded Rs. 100/- for providing certified 7/12 extracts needed by the complainant for a loan. The complainant (PW1) alleged that on 25.04.2006 he met the accused, who called him on 26.04.2006 and demanded Rs. 100/- as bribe for the documents. Instead of paying, the complainant lodged a complaint on 27.04.2006, leading to a trap at the accused’s house. The prosecution claimed that the accused accepted the currency note and placed it in a drawer, after preparing and handing over the extracts. The accused denied the bribe, asserting that the Rs. 100/- note was given to cover fees of Rs. 10/- for two certified copies, and he was seeking change to return Rs. 90/- when falsely implicated. The trial court, after examining four witnesses, found the prosecution evidence unreliable and gave benefit of doubt, leading to acquittal. The State appealed, contending that the trial court gave undue weight to minor discrepancies like absence of glitter in the drawer and non-recovery of the note from the drawer. The High Court, upon reappreciation, noted critical admissions by the panch witness (PW2) and the investigating officer (PW4) that there was no glitter in the drawer and the currency note was not found either on the accused’s person or in the drawer. The complainant himself admitted not checking the drawer with ultraviolet lamp and not paying the separate Rs. 10/- fee. These inconsistencies shattered the prosecution’s case of demand and acceptance. The court held that the trial court’s view was not perverse and no interference was warranted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption - Proof of Demand and Acceptance - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - The prosecution failed to prove that the accused demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 100/-. In cross-examination, the panch witness and investigating officer admitted there was no glitter in the drawer and the currency note was not found in the drawer, contradicting the complainant’s claim. The trial court’s view that the evidence was unreliable was plausible, and the High Court dismissed the State’s appeal against acquittal. Held, the benefit of doubt was properly given (Paras 5-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused by giving benefit of doubt due to unreliable prosecution evidence regarding demand and acceptance of bribe under sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and whether the acquittal called for interference.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the acquittal, finding that the trial court's view was reasonable and not perverse. The prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt due to material inconsistencies in the evidence.
Law Points
- acquittal appeal
- benefit of doubt
- proof of demand and acceptance
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- inconsistent testimony
- trap procedure
- ultraviolet lamp test
- non-recovery of bribe money
