Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Gajanan s/o Lobhaji Dahale, was convicted by the Special Judge, Pusad, for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.1,000 for each offence. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, a public servant, demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.500 from the complainant, Harish Jadhav, a tracer in the Public Works Department, to sanction his sick leave and release his salary. The complainant had been transferred multiple times and had applied for release of salary. The trap was laid by the Anti Corruption Bureau, and the appellant was caught with tainted money. However, the panch witness (PW2) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the evidence of the complainant and the investigating officer. On appeal, the High Court scrutinized the evidence and found that the trap witness was unreliable and that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the complainant's evidence was inconsistent and that the recovery of money alone did not establish the offence. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act was rebutted by the appellant. Consequently, 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) read with 13(2) - Trap Witness Credibility - The court examined whether the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused, a public servant, for sanctioning sick leave and releasing salary. The trap witness (panch witness) turned hostile and his testimony was found unreliable. The court held that mere recovery of tainted money from the accused does not raise presumption under Section 20 unless demand is proved. The conviction was set aside as the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 6-10). B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Rebuttable Presumption - The court clarified that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act arises only when acceptance of gratification is proved. In this case, the evidence of demand was shaky and the trap witness was not independent. The accused successfully rebutted the presumption by showing that the money was planted or that there was no demand. The court emphasized that the burden on the accused is not as heavy as on the prosecution and can be discharged by preponderance of probabilities (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable when the evidence of the trap witness is unreliable and the demand and acceptance of bribe are not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
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 trap witness must be scrutinized with caution
- Mere recovery of tainted money does not establish demand
