Case Note & Summary
The case involved two appellants convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding a bribe in exchange for an Income Certificate. The prosecution alleged that A1, a Talati-cum-Mantri, demanded ₹ 120/- from the complainant, while A2, a Peon, was to receive ₹ 20/- of that amount. The complainant lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau after being asked for the bribe. During the trial, the prosecution presented five witnesses, but the trial court found that while A1 had made a demand, A2's involvement was not proven. The trial court convicted both appellants, but the High Court upheld the conviction without enhancing the sentence. The appellants challenged this decision in the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and that the sanction for A1's prosecution was invalid as it was granted by an incompetent authority. The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and found inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony regarding the demand amount and the circumstances under which the bribe was allegedly paid. The court noted that the prosecution did not establish a clear demand for the bribe, and the presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not be applied without proof of demand. Ultimately, the Supreme Court acquitted both appellants, setting aside the convictions and highlighting the insufficiency of the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Demand of Bribe - Insufficient Evidence - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) - The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of ₹ 120/- made by A1 beyond reasonable doubt, as the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and raised doubts regarding the alleged demand. Held that mere possession of a currency note by A2 was insufficient to uphold the conviction (Paras 18-19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved the demand of bribe against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the trial Court and the High Court, acquitting both appellants of the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court found that the prosecution did not prove the demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt and that the sanction for A1's prosecution was invalid.
Law Points
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- Sections 7
- 12
- 13(1)(d)
- Criminal Conspiracy
- Section 120B IPC
- Validity of Sanction for Prosecution
- Presumption under Section 20 of the Act
