Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Dattatraya Rajaram Thaokar, a retired government servant, was convicted by the Special Judge, Nagpur in Special Case No. 25/1991 for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 3000 for the offence under Section 7, and rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 3000 for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2). The prosecution case was that the appellant, while working as an Accounts Officer in the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 500 from the complainant, a contractor, to clear pending bills. The complainant lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau on 23.07.1990, and a trap was laid. The appellant was caught red-handed accepting the bribe money. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the testimony of the complainant and trap witnesses. On appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the evidence and found material inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution case. The court noted that the complainant's version regarding the demand of bribe was not corroborated by independent witnesses, and the trap witnesses gave conflicting accounts. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of credible evidence of demand, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot be invoked. The court held that the evidence of the complainant and trap witnesses was inconsistent and unreliable, and the conviction was set aside (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in law based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and order dated 18.12.2001 passed by Special Judge, Nagpur in Special Case 25/1991 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 arises only when demand and acceptance are proved
- Standard of proof in corruption cases
- Necessity of corroboration to trap witness testimony
