Corruption -- Recovery of Tainted Currency Without Proof of Demand -- Cannot sustain conviction
(i) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S.20 -- Presumption of Acceptance of Bribe -- Recovery of Tainted Currency Without Proof of Demand -- Cannot be raised where the initial demand of bribe has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 operates only once demand is independently established, and mere recovery of tainted currency, coupled with the status of the accused as a public servant, does not by itself resurrect the prosecution case. (ii) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S.7, S.13(1)(d) -- Proof of Demand for Bribe -- Contradictory Testimony of Complainant -- Renders the demand doubtful where the complainant deposes a different version of the amount demanded in a separate proceeding without explanation for the discrepancy in the present case. Such variance weakens the reliability of the complainant's version regarding the alleged demand. (iii) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S.7, S.13(1)(d) -- Deviation from Trap Instructions -- Raises doubt over the genuineness of a bribery trap where the complainant, instructed to hand over the entire demanded amount, hands over only a part of it without objection from either accused, and where the tainted amount is handed over only after the requested service has already been rendered. (iv) Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 -- Sanction for Prosecution of Talati-cum-Mantri -- Validity -- Issued by an authority not shown to be empowered to remove the officer concerned is invalid. However, a conviction cannot be set aside solely on the ground of an invalid sanction where the prosecution evidence independently fails to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
LOGIN TO READCaseLawToday.com is powered by M/s Law Herald Infotech
