Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Fakira s/o Magdu Kannake, a Head Constable, was convicted by the Special Judge, Gadchiroli for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and one year respectively with fines. The prosecution alleged that on 6.12.1993, the appellant demanded Rs. 4,000 from the complainant Pralhad Mandal (PW1) for not beating him and his brother in connection with a theft complaint. A trap was laid on 17.12.1993, and tainted currency notes were recovered from the appellant's possession. The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the complainant's testimony was unreliable and the demand was not proved. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found that the complainant's version was contradictory and not corroborated by the panch witness (PW2), who turned hostile. The court noted that the complainant had a motive to falsely implicate the appellant due to previous enmity. The recovery of tainted money alone, without proof of demand, was insufficient to attract the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, and accordingly allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Proof of Demand - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to attract presumption under Section 20 of the Act. In the instant case, the complainant's testimony was found unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration, and the demand was not proved. Held, conviction set aside and appellant acquitted (Paras 1-10). B) Evidence Law - Trap Cases - Credibility of Complainant - Corroboration - In trap cases, the complainant is an interested witness and his testimony requires independent corroboration. The court found that the complainant's version was inconsistent and not supported by the panch witness or other evidence. Held, benefit of doubt given to appellant (Paras 5-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable when the complainant's testimony is unreliable and the demand of bribe is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 does not arise if demand is not proved
- Complainant's testimony must be corroborated in trap cases
- Benefit of doubt when prosecution fails to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt
