Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Deorao Marotrao Bhagatkar, was the Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Chandrapur. He was convicted by the Special Judge, Chandrapur, in Special Case No.4 of 1994 for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to simple imprisonment for 3 years and 2 years respectively, with fines. The allegation was that on 24/04/1993, the complainant Pradip Pilliwar (PW1) met the appellant regarding admission of his daughter to the first standard. The appellant allegedly demanded Rs.1,000 as bribe for the admission. The complainant submitted the admission form on 26/04/1993. On 27/04/1993, the complainant lodged a complaint with the CBI, and a trap was laid. The appellant was caught accepting the bribe money, and the currency notes were recovered from his possession. The trial court convicted the appellant. In appeal, the High Court examined the evidence. The complainant's testimony was found to be inconsistent and lacking corroboration. The independent witnesses, including the panch witness (PW2), did not fully support the prosecution case. The court noted that the complainant had stated that the appellant demanded money on 24/04/1993, but the complaint was lodged only on 27/04/1993 without any explanation for the delay. The recovery of tainted money alone was insufficient to prove demand and acceptance. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act was rebutted by the defence, which showed that the appellant had no motive to demand a bribe as the admission was already granted. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - The appellant, a Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya, was convicted for demanding and accepting Rs.1,000 from the complainant for admission of his daughter. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, as the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and uncorroborated. The presumption under Section 20 was rebutted by the defence. (Paras 1-40) B) Evidence Act - Corroboration - Section 134 - The court held that the evidence of the complainant, being an interested witness, required corroboration in material particulars. The absence of independent witnesses and discrepancies in the complainant's version led to the conclusion that the prosecution case was not proved. (Paras 15-30) C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Rebuttal - The court observed that the presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Act is rebuttable. The appellant successfully rebutted the presumption by showing that the money was planted or that there was no demand. (Paras 25-35)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 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.
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
- Evidence of complainant must be corroborated in material particulars
- Mere recovery of tainted money does not prove acceptance of bribe
