Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Gopal Wasudeo Gulhane, a Senior Clerk in the Office of Deputy Director of Vocational Education & Training, Amravati, was convicted by the Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Special Case No. 18/1991 for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000, with default imprisonment of three months. The case arose from a complaint by Ulhas Khedkar, an Instructor at Prabodhan Junior College, Daryapur, who alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 500 to process his salary approval. The complainant claimed that despite sending proposals, his salary for October and November 1990 was not released, and the appellant demanded a bribe. A trap was laid, and the appellant was caught accepting tainted money. The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found material contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the complainant and the panch witness. The court noted that the complainant's version of demand was not corroborated by independent evidence, and the recovery of tainted money alone was insufficient to prove corruption. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act could not be invoked without such proof. 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), 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. The court held that the evidence of the complainant and panch witness was unreliable and contradictory, and the presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot be invoked without proof of demand and acceptance. (Paras 10-15) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Section 20 - Applicability - The presumption of corruption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 arises only after the prosecution proves the demand and acceptance of bribe. In the absence of such proof, the presumption cannot be used to convict the accused. (Paras 12-14) C) Evidence Act - Appreciation of Evidence - Credibility of Witnesses - The testimony of interested witnesses, such as the complainant and panch witness, must be scrutinized carefully. Inconsistencies and contradictions in their evidence create reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to acquittal. (Paras 10-15)
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 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.
Law Points
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act arises only after demand and acceptance are proved
- Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict
