Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere, against the acquittal of the respondent, C B Nagaraj, by the High Court of Karnataka. The respondent, an Extension Officer in the Taluka Panchayath, Davanagere, was convicted by the Special Judge, Davanagere, under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 1,500 from the complainant, E R Krishnamurthy, to forward a spot inspection report. The High Court set aside the conviction, holding that the demand was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court, after analyzing the evidence, found that the only evidence of demand came from the complainant (PW1) and a trap witness (PW2), whose testimony was contradictory and incoherent. PW2 initially stated he did not hear the conversation inside the chamber but later claimed he saw the demand and acceptance from a distance. The Court noted that the complainant himself had signed the spot inspection report, which undermined his credibility. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not be invoked. The Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, emphasizing that the benefit of doubt must go to the accused when the prosecution's evidence is not clear and reliable. The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent's acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - Proof of Demand - The prosecution must prove demand of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt; presumption under Section 20 arises only after demand and acceptance are established. In the present case, the only evidence of demand came from the complainant (PW1) and a trap witness (PW2) whose testimony was contradictory and incoherent. The High Court rightly held that demand was not proved, and the Supreme Court affirmed, noting that the benefit of doubt must flow to the accused when the prosecution's evidence is not clear and reliable (Paras 21-24). B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Rebuttable Presumption - Section 20 - The presumption under Section 20 of the Act is rebuttable and arises only when it is proved that the public servant accepted or agreed to accept gratification other than legal remuneration. In this case, since the foundational fact of demand was not proved, the presumption could not be invoked against the respondent (Paras 9-10, 24). C) Evidence Act - Credibility of Witness - Contradictory Testimony - Benefit of Doubt - When a prosecution witness (PW2) gives contradictory statements regarding the demand, the benefit of such inconsistency must go to the accused. The Supreme Court held that PW2's deposition was not coherent and slightly self-contradictory, and therefore, the respondent was entitled to the benefit of doubt (Paras 21-23).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction of the respondent under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the ground that the demand of illegal gratification was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's judgment acquitting the respondent. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 arises only after demand and acceptance are proved
- Demand must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Benefit of doubt to accused when prosecution witness testimony is contradictory
- Sole testimony of complainant requires greater scrutiny when uncorroborated
