Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused, a stenographer in the office of the Civil Surgeon, Nagpur, was convicted by the Special Judge for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 250 for issuing a medical certificate. The complainant, a reporter, had alleged that the accused demanded illegal gratification when he sought a certificate for leave. A trap was laid, and the accused accepted the money. However, during trial, the complainant turned hostile and testified that the accused had not demanded a bribe but was only asking for repayment of a loan. He admitted that he had borrowed money previously and that the accused was merely seeking its return. The Civil Surgeon's evidence established that the accused, as a stenographer, had no authority to issue medical certificates, and the certificate could only be issued after examination by the Civil Surgeon. The Civil Surgeon was on leave on the relevant day, and the complainant had not even obtained the mandatory OPD card. The prosecution failed to prove the payment of requisite fees. The defence argued that the demand was not proved and that the accused had no capacity to show any favour, relying on precedents requiring proof of demand as a sine qua non. The court noted that the complainant's admission in cross-examination and the surrounding circumstances rendered the defence of loan repayment more than probable on a preponderance of probabilities. The court held that the prosecution had not established a decisive and conclusive demand for illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, and the mere acceptance of money was insufficient. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the accused was acquitted, and the appeal was allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption - Proof of Demand - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - The prosecution must prove a decisive and conclusive demand for illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt; mere acceptance and recovery of money is insufficient. The complainant turned hostile and admitted that the accused was demanding repayment of a loan, and the defence of loan repayment was probabilised on preponderance of probabilities. Held that the prosecution failed to prove demand, and the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt, resulting in acquittal. (Paras 5-11) B) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption - Role and Capacity of Accused - Relevance - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Where the accused stenographer was not in a position to issue the medical certificate and there was no allegation against the Civil Surgeon, the lack of any capacity to show favour created infirmity in the prosecution case. Held that this circumstance weakens the foundation of the prosecution story, further justifying acquittal. (Paras 4, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded illegal gratification, and whether the defence of repayment of loan was probable.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted of all charges; bail bond discharged; fine, if paid, refunded.
Law Points
- Proof of decisive and conclusive demand is sine qua non for offence under Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- mere acceptance and recovery of money insufficient
- defence probabilised on preponderance of probabilities entitles accused to benefit of doubt
- accused must be in a position to show favour to establish motive for bribe.
