Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w. s.13(2) – The complainant sought compensation for trees that dried due to drought – Allegation that appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.20,000/- to conduct an inquiry and prepare a report – A trap was laid for appellant – It was alleged that at the decided place, appellant asked PW1 to keep the bribe amount in a rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of his motorcycle – Accordingly, PW1 kept the bribe amount in the said bag – PW1 then signalled to the trap party indicating acceptance of bribe by the appellant – The trap party then approached the appellant and questioned him regarding the bribe amount – Tests were conducted on the hands of the appellant which proved negative – However, money was recovered from the rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of the appellant’s motorcycle:
Held: To begin with, PW3 had stated that a few days prior to the incident, there was hot talk between the complainant-PW1 and the appellant, and in fact, PW3 had reprimanded the appellant for quarrelling with PW1 – However, the High Court has disbelieved this aspect without assigning any reason(s) for the same – On perusal of the Judgment(s)/Orders(s) of the Courts below and the material on record, it transpires that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses – From all the official versions of the witness’ depositions before the Trial Court, the claimed/projected sequence of events by the prosecution-respondent, of both (i) the money being placed in the rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of the appellant’s bike, and; (ii) its recovery as also whether the same was in the presence of the appellant, does not seem to inspire confidence – The same cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt – As far as presumption u/s.20 of the Act is concerned, the factum of demand, in the backdrop of an element of animus between the appellant and complainant, is not proved – In such circumstances, the presumption u/s.20 of the Act would not militate against the appellant – Thus, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant is set aside, extending to him the benefit of doubt – The judgments of the Courts below are quashed. [Paras 17, 19, 21, 22]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.