Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from the conviction of two police officers, an Assistant Police Inspector and a Police Naik, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Bureau, Pune. The first accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 7 and two years under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2), with fines and default sentences; the second accused was sentenced to one year under Section 12. The complainant had married in November 2011, and a domestic dispute in May 2013 brought the couple to the Alankar Police Outpost, where the first accused served a notice under Section 149 CrPC. Shortly thereafter, the first accused allegedly demanded Rs.50,000 from the complainant by threatening to register an FIR from the wife, and the complainant paid Rs.40,000. About two and a quarter months later, the accused again called the complainant, stating that the wife had lodged a complaint, and demanded Rs.25,000 for his efforts in conciliation; the complainant paid Rs.10,000. On 19 August 2013, the wife lodged an FIR under Section 498A IPC against the complainant, his mother, and sisters. The first accused arrested the complainant on the same day, produced him in court on 20 August 2013, and he was released on bail. After the mother and sisters obtained anticipatory bail, the complainant met the first accused on 22 August 2013 with the bail order. The first accused then demanded Rs.50,000 to conduct the investigation in a manner that the offence would not be proved and a favourable chargesheet would be filed; upon learning of the complainant's financial constraints, the demand was reduced to Rs.25,000. The complainant, unwilling to pay the bribe, lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau the same day. The ACB registered the complaint, secured panch witnesses, and decided to verify the demand and lay a trap on 23 August 2013. On that day, the complainant brought currency notes, which were smeared with anthracene powder, and a pre-trap panchanama was prepared. The raiding squad reached the Alankar Police Outpost at around 11:30 a.m. The shadow panch and complainant entered the outpost at 11:45 a.m., where the complainant informed the first accused that he had Rs.20,000 and would pay the remaining in two days. The first accused insisted on immediate payment of the full amount. The conversation was recorded, and the trap proceedings were initiated. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to convict both accused. The appeal challenges that conviction, though the judgment text provided does not include the court's final reasoning or order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - The prosecution alleged that the first accused, an Assistant Police Inspector, demanded and accepted bribes from the complainant on multiple occasions to manipulate the investigation of a matrimonial offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, including a trap where the accused demanded Rs.25,000 and was caught with tainted currency notes; the second accused, a Police Naik, was convicted for abetting the offence. (Paras 2-3(d))
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 7, 12, and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on the prosecution evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe was sustainable
Law Points
- Demand and acceptance of bribe by public servant
- trap proceedings
- shadow panch
- verification of demand
- burden of proof in corruption cases
- abetment of bribery
