Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the judgment and order dated 29.03.2005 in Special Case No.26/2003 passed by the Special Judge at Aurangabad, convicting the appellant, a police naik, for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500 on each count, with default stipulation. The prosecution case was that the appellant, while posted at Phulambri police station, demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.200 as weekly hafta from the complainant, a driver of a private passenger jeep, for allowing him to ply the jeep. The initial demand allegedly occurred on 23.08.2003 when the appellant stopped the jeep near Deogiri Sugar Factory and demanded the hafta amount. The complainant informed the jeep owner, who refused to pay and instructed the complainant to lodge a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau. On 26.08.2003, a trap was arranged where tainted currency notes were handed over by the complainant to the appellant, who accepted them by right hand and kept them in his t-shirt pocket. A prearranged signal was given and the raiding party recovered the notes. The appellant was arrested and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The trial court framed charges and, after trial, convicted the appellant. During the appeal, the appellant contended that the prosecution failed to prove the initial demand of bribe and the demand on the trap day. The complainant (PW1) and shadow panch (PW2) gave inconsistent versions regarding the conversation at the time of acceptance. Crucially, the complainant admitted in cross-examination that the appellant had given him a hand loan and that the Rs.200 paid on 26.08.2003 was repayment of that loan. Other witnesses, including PW3, PW4, and PW5, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The appellant argued that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not be invoked as the demand of bribe was not proved, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. Dist. Inspector of Police. The defence also highlighted that the prosecution failed to examine the jeep owner, Mohd. Muzafar, who was a material witness to the initial demand and the instruction to lodge the complaint. The appellant's immediate explanation upon being caught—that he had only received back the money he had lent—was consistent with the defence and sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt. The legal issues centered on the essentiality of proving demand of illegal gratification for conviction under the PC Act, the scope and precondition for the Section 20 presumption, the effect of hostile witnesses and non-examination of material witnesses on the prosecution case, and the standard for accepting a probable defence. The court considered the submissions and the evidence on record. It noted that the prosecution's own evidence was contradictory and the complainant himself supported the defence version. The failure to examine the jeep owner further weakened the case. The judgment excerpt ends before a final decision is recorded; the provided text concludes with the appellant's submissions seeking acquittal, leaving the court's ultimate order not included.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption – Demand of Bribe – Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – The prosecution alleged that the accused police naik demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.200 as hafta for allowing the complainant to run a passenger jeep – The complainant and shadow panch gave inconsistent evidence regarding the demand conversation – The complainant admitted in cross-examination that the amount was repayment of a hand loan – Other witnesses turned hostile – Held, that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe, which is an indispensable ingredient for the offences – The Supreme Court's decision in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. Dist. Inspector of Police, 2015 AIR SC 3549 was relied upon (Paras 4-7, 10). B) Evidence – Presumption under Section 20 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – The court observed that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act arises only upon proof of acceptance of illegal gratification – Since the prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe, the mere recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused could not raise the presumption – The accused's immediate explanation that he had received repayment of a loan was found probable (Paras 5, 7, 9). C) Criminal Trial – Hostile Witnesses – Non-Examination of Material Witness – The prosecution did not examine Mohd. Muzafar, the jeep owner, who was the person who allegedly directed the complainant to lodge the complaint – The complainant (PW1) and other witnesses (PW3, PW4, PW5) did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile – The failure to examine the jeep owner created a doubt about the initial demand of bribe – The defence of loan repayment was admitted by PW1 and supported by the immediate explanation given by the accused at the time of trap (Paras 6, 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved the demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; whether the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be sustained when key witnesses turned hostile and the complainant admitted the defence of loan repayment; whether failure to examine the jeep owner as a witness is fatal to the prosecution case.
Law Points
- demand of bribe is indispensable for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- mere recovery of tainted currency notes is insufficient
- presumption under Section 20 contingent on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification
- failure to examine material witness can be fatal to prosecution
- benefit of doubt must be given if defence is probable and prosecution fails to prove essential ingredients
