Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Baliram s/o Mansingh Chawhan, a Police Head Constable, was convicted by the Special Judge, Washim in Special Case No. 3/1998 for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The prosecution case was that on 30.01.1998, the complainant Sk. Jafar had a verbal altercation with one Narayan Somatkar, and both lodged complaints against each other. The appellant, who was investigating the complaint, allegedly demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 4000/- from the complainant on 05.02.1998, which was later scaled down to Rs. 1000/-. The appellant agreed to accept the amount through co-accused Mukinda on 07.02.1998. On that day, the appellant accepted Rs. 450/- through Mukinda as part payment. On 03.03.1998, Mukinda demanded the remaining Rs. 550/- from the complainant on behalf of the appellant. The complainant, unwilling to pay, approached the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Akola, and lodged an oral report. The ACB laid a trap on 04.03.1998, but the trap did not result in the appellant accepting the bribe. The trial court convicted both the appellant and Mukinda. Mukinda's appeal abated due to his death. The appellant challenged the conviction. The High Court, after hearing arguments, found that the evidence of the complainant (PW1) was unreliable and inconsistent. The panch witness (PW2) did not support the prosecution case. The court noted that the trap witness is an interested witness and his testimony requires corroboration, which was lacking. The court also observed that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act was rebutted. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Trap Witness Credibility - The appellant, a Police Head Constable, was convicted for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.450/- through a co-accused. The court held that the trap witness (complainant) was an interested witness whose testimony required corroboration. The evidence of the complainant was found to be inconsistent and unreliable, and the panch witness did not support the prosecution case. The court concluded that the demand and acceptance of bribe were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption under Section 20 of the Act was rebutted. (Paras 1-10) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Rebuttal - Section 20 - The court held that the presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is rebuttable. In this case, the appellant successfully rebutted the presumption by demonstrating that the prosecution evidence was unreliable and that the alleged demand and acceptance were not proved. The court emphasized that the burden on the accused is not as heavy as that on the prosecution, and a reasonable doubt suffices. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in law based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is rebuttable
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Evidence of interested witness requires corroboration
- Trap witness is an interested witness
