Case Note & Summary
The appellant, a Police Hawaldar, was convicted by the Special Judge, Karad for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 1000 from the complainant to avoid arresting the complainant's wife and children in a non-cognizable offence. The complainant lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau, and a trap was laid. The appellant was caught accepting the bribe amount, which was found in his table drawer. The trial court convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the complainant and the panch witness regarding the demand and acceptance. The court noted that the complainant's version of the demand was not corroborated by the panch witness, and the appellant had explained that the amount was placed in the drawer without his knowledge. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - Presumption under Section 20 - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; the presumption under Section 20 is rebuttable and arises only after foundational facts are established. In this case, the evidence of the complainant and panch witness was inconsistent regarding the demand and acceptance, and the appellant successfully rebutted the presumption by showing that the amount was kept in the drawer without his knowledge. Held that the conviction was not sustainable and the appellant was entitled to acquittal. (Paras 1-13)
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 based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
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
- Inconsistencies in prosecution evidence lead to benefit of doubt
