Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shrikrushna s/o Janardhan Chaudhari, was a Police Constable attached to Akot Police Station. On 15.1.1993, he along with other constables intercepted a jeep driven by complainant Gajanan Deshmukh. The complainant alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.100 to release the vehicle which was allegedly overloaded. A trap was laid, and tainted currency notes were recovered from the appellant's pocket. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and one year respectively. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant's testimony was inconsistent and uncorroborated. The independent panch witness turned hostile. The recovery of tainted money alone, without proof of demand and acceptance, was insufficient to sustain the conviction. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not be invoked as the foundational facts of demand and acceptance were not established. 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(1)(d) r/w 13(2) - Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to sustain conviction - Held that the trial court erred in convicting the appellant without satisfactory evidence of demand and acceptance (Paras 10-12). B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Applicability - The presumption under Section 20 of the Act arises only after the prosecution proves demand and acceptance of bribe; in the absence of such proof, the presumption cannot be invoked - Held that the trial court wrongly applied the presumption against the appellant (Para 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable when the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Demand of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act arises only after demand and acceptance are proved
- Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict under Prevention of Corruption Act
