Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shailendra Manikrao Bakare, was convicted by the Special Judge, Pune, for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The case arose from a complaint by Dr. Hemant Chikhalikar, who alleged that the appellant, a Bench Clerk, demanded a bribe of Rs. 500 to issue a bailable warrant in a defamation case. A trap was laid, and the appellant was caught accepting tainted currency notes. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The High Court analyzed the evidence, noting that the first informant (PW1) gave contradictory statements about the demand, and the trap witness (PW2) turned hostile. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The recovery of money alone was insufficient to invoke the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act. The 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), 13(2) - Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt - The court examined whether the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant, a Bench Clerk, for issuing a bailable warrant. The evidence of the first informant (PW1) was found unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration. The trap witness (PW2) was declared hostile, and the recovery of tainted money alone was held insufficient to prove demand. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act does not arise unless demand is proved, and the conviction was set aside (Paras 1-20).
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 of a trap witness and recovery of tainted currency notes.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 19th August 2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, Pune, in Special Case No. 16 of 1998 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act is rebuttable
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Evidence of trap witness requires corroboration
- Recovery of tainted money alone insufficient for conviction
