Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sukhdeo Laxman Parale, was a Talathi (village revenue officer) in Phulumri, Yavatmal. He was convicted by the Special Judge, Pusad, for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months respectively. The complainant, Narayan Rathod (PW1), held a Power of Attorney from Panchfula, who along with her sisters had inherited fields from Dayaram Rathod. The complainant alleged that when he approached the appellant for copies of 7/12 extracts, mutation entries, and heir certificate, the appellant demanded Rs.200, which was paid on 15-7-1998. A trap was laid, and the appellant was caught accepting Rs.200. The trial court convicted the appellant, but acquitted his wife (accused no.2). The High Court, on appeal, examined the evidence and found that the complainant's testimony was unreliable and inconsistent. The panch witnesses did not support the prosecution, and the independent witnesses turned hostile. The court noted that the demand and acceptance of bribe were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act was rebutted by the appellant's explanation that the money was a loan for his wife's medical treatment. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Burden of Proof - The appellant, a Talathi, was convicted for demanding and accepting Rs.200 from the complainant for providing copies of 7/12 extracts and mutation entries. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, as the complainant's testimony was unreliable and lacked corroboration from independent witnesses. The presumption under Section 20 was rebutted by the appellant's explanation. (Paras 1-15) B) Evidence Act - Corroboration - Testimony of Complainant - In corruption cases, the testimony of the complainant must be corroborated by independent evidence, especially when the complainant is an interested witness. The court found that the panch witnesses did not support the prosecution case, and the recovery of tainted money alone was insufficient to prove guilt. (Paras 10-15) C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Rebuttal - The presumption that a public servant who accepts gratification is presumed to have done so as a motive or reward for performing a public duty is rebuttable. The appellant's explanation that the money was received as a loan for medical expenses was plausible and not disproved by the prosecution. (Paras 12-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7, 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 and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
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
- Complainant's testimony must be corroborated in corruption cases
- Acquittal of co-accused does not automatically benefit main accused
