Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Anna Mahadu Arote, a police constable, was convicted by the Special Judge, Greater Bombay, for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution case was that on 3 June 1996, the complainant Ramji Patel was reconstructing his hut when a police hawaldar stopped him and directed him to meet the appellant at Lokhandwala Police Chowky. The appellant allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 500 to allow the reconstruction. On 5 June 1996, the complainant lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), and a trap was laid. The appellant was caught accepting the bribe money, and the tainted currency notes were recovered from his possession. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the complainant's testimony and the trap evidence. In appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found that the complainant's version regarding the demand of bribe was inconsistent and unreliable. The complainant initially stated that the demand was made on 3 June 1996, but later claimed it was on 4 June 1996. The panch witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. The investigating officer's testimony also had discrepancies. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act was rebutted by the appellant's plausible explanation that the money was thrust upon him. 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(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - Credibility of Complainant - The complainant, an interested witness, gave contradictory versions regarding the demand of bribe; his testimony was not corroborated by independent witnesses or documentary evidence - Held that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption under Section 20 was rebutted (Paras 10-18). B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Trap Case - Necessity of Independent Corroboration - Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - In a trap case, the evidence of the complainant must be corroborated by independent witnesses or circumstances; the panch witness turned hostile and the investigating officer's testimony did not inspire confidence - Held that the conviction cannot be sustained on uncorroborated testimony of an interested witness (Paras 19-22). C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Rebuttal - Section 20 - The presumption that a public servant who accepts gratification is presumed to have done so as a motive or reward can be rebutted by showing that the acceptance was under duress or without demand; the appellant's explanation that the money was thrust upon him was plausible and unrebutted - Held that the presumption was successfully rebutted (Paras 23-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable when the complainant's testimony is unreliable and the demand and acceptance of bribe are not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 25 February 2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay in Special Case No. 15 of 1997 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is rebuttable
- standard of proof for demand and acceptance of bribe
- credibility of complainant as interested witness
- necessity of independent corroboration in trap cases
