Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Dayaram s/o Balram Kuthe, was a Tax Collector with the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The complainant, Dharamraj Natthuji Madankar, constructed a house in Ward 73, Nagpur, which was not assessed for property tax. After a survey by the Talathi, the complainant visited the Corporation office on 17.03.1986 to request assessment. About four months later, the appellant visited Ward 73 for recovery and informed the complainant that the tax for 1987-88 was Rs.52.60, but the complainant would have to pay an additional Rs.175/- as reward (mehtana) for the work done. The appellant demanded a total of Rs.230/- including the tax. The complainant reported the matter to the Anti Corruption Bureau, and a trap was laid on 06.02.1988. The complainant paid Rs.230/- to the appellant, and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the appellant's possession. The appellant was convicted by the Designated Court under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-. The appellant appealed to the High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of the complainant, trap witnesses, and the recovery of the notes. The court held that the demand and acceptance were proved, and the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Act applied. The court found no reason to interfere with the conviction and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Criminal Misconduct - Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - The appellant, a Tax Collector, demanded and accepted Rs.175/- as illegal gratification for issuing a tax demand notice. The court held that the demand and acceptance were proved through the testimony of the complainant and trap witnesses, and the recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant raised a presumption under Section 4(1) of the Act. The conviction was upheld. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Act - Presumption - Section 114 - When a public servant is found in possession of tainted currency notes, the court may presume that he accepted the bribe. The court relied on this presumption to confirm the conviction. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence upheld.
Law Points
- Demand of illegal gratification by a public servant for performing official duty constitutes criminal misconduct
- Presumption under Section 4(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1947 applies when demand and acceptance are proved
- Recovery of tainted currency notes from accused raises presumption of acceptance
- Conviction can be based on sole testimony of complainant if corroborated by trap witnesses and recovery
