Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Nivrutti s/o Ganpati Sadekar, was a Junior Assistant in the Education Department of Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. The complainant, Balaji Sable, was a Junior Clerk at Arts College, Dhoki, responsible for preparing Economically Backward Class (EBC) bills. On 16.11.2000, the complainant submitted bills for approval, but the appellant allegedly demanded Rs.3000 for sanction. On 21.04.2001, the complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and lodged a complaint on 23.04.2001. A trap was arranged, and the appellant allegedly accepted Rs.1500 from the complainant. The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge, Osmanabad, under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and two years respectively, with fines. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, noting that the complainant's testimony was inconsistent regarding the demand and acceptance, and the panch witness turned hostile. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not be invoked. Consequently, 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) read with 13(2) - Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; presumption under Section 20 arises only after such proof. In this case, the evidence of the complainant and panch witness was inconsistent and unreliable, and the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance. Held that the conviction was not sustainable and the appellant was entitled to acquittal. (Paras 1-20) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Trap Case - Credibility of Witnesses - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - In a trap case, the evidence of the complainant and panch witness must be cogent and reliable. The complainant's testimony was contradictory and the panch witness turned hostile, leading to doubt. Held that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. (Paras 10-18)
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 in law based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Osmanabad in Special Case No. 12 of 2001 dated 15th April, 2005 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 arises only when demand and acceptance are proved
- Burden of proof on prosecution to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt
- Acquittal if evidence is inconsistent or unreliable
