Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Zaverilal Ramjibhai Gala, was a Chief Engineer with Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB) and was convicted by the Special Judge (ACB), Kutch at Bhuj in Special Case (ACB) No. 50/2003 for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine. The complainant, Praveenbhai Keshavlal Chaudhury, had a contract to supply water to GEB and alleged that the accused demanded a bribe of Rs. 9,000 to clear his bills. A trap was laid, and the accused was caught accepting the bribe money. The trial court convicted the appellant. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found that the complainant was a trap witness and his testimony was not corroborated by any independent witness. The panch witnesses turned hostile, and the shadow witness did not support the prosecution case. The court held that the evidence of a trap witness is that of an interested witness and requires corroboration. Since the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction was set aside. The court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and ordered his release unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Trap Witness - Corroboration - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - The conviction of a public servant for demanding and accepting a bribe cannot be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant who is a trap witness, as he is an interested witness. The court held that the evidence of a trap witness must be scrutinized with care and caution, and in the absence of independent corroboration, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. (Paras 1-38) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance - Proof - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. Mere recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused does not raise a presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act unless the foundational facts of demand and acceptance are first established. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance, and the conviction was set aside. (Paras 1-38)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable when the only evidence is the testimony of the complainant (trap witness) without independent corroboration.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Trap witness is an interested witness
- conviction cannot be based solely on uncorroborated testimony of trap witness
- demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- presumption under Section 20 of PC Act arises only after foundational facts are established
