Case Note & Summary
The case involves two appeals against a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellants, Kashinath Vikramji Thorat (accused No.2, Naib Tahsildar) and Raju Laxmanrao Bahekar (accused No.1, Patwari), were convicted by the Special Judge, Amravati, for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. They were sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and one year respectively, with fines. The prosecution alleged that the accused demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.300 from the complainant for issuing a 7/12 extract. A trap was laid, and tainted money was recovered from accused No.1. The High Court examined the evidence, noting that the complainant turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The trap witness (PW2) was found unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration. The court held that the demand and acceptance of bribe were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not be invoked as the demand was not established. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. The court emphasized that recovery of tainted money alone is insufficient for conviction without proof of demand and acceptance.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Proof - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to draw presumption under Section 20 if the demand is not established. Held that the evidence of the complainant and trap witness was unreliable and lacked corroboration, leading to acquittal (Paras 1-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable based on the evidence of a trap witness and recovery of tainted money.
Final Decision
Both appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 28.6.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Special Case (ACB) No.2/1993 is quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
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
- Trap witness testimony requires corroboration
- Recovery of tainted money alone insufficient for conviction
