1995 (3) TMI 488 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction u/s 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 161 read with 120-B IPC.
2. Demand and acceptance of bribe.
3. Evidence and corroboration requirements for conviction.
4. Sentencing.

Summary:

1. Conviction u/s 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 161 read with 120-B IPC:
The appellants, A-1 and A-2, were convicted by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissour, for offences under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 161 read with 120-B IPC. A-1 was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000, while A-2 was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500. The High Court dismissed their appeals, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

2. Demand and acceptance of bribe:
At the relevant time, A-1 was the Tehsildar, and A-2 was the Village Assistant. The case involved a bribe demand for issuing a patta for 55 cents of Sarkar Porambokhu land. P.W.1 filed a complaint after A-1 demanded Rs. 500 as a bribe, which was to be handed over to A-2. The trap was set, and the tainted money was recovered from A-2, who admitted to receiving the amount but claimed it was a repayment of a loan taken by A-1 from his provident fund.

3. Evidence and corroboration requirements for conviction:
The Court examined the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who were inconsistent in their testimonies. However, the trial court and the High Court found the evidence of P.W.1, corroborated by independent witnesses P.Ws. 3 and 4, sufficient to establish the guilt of both accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court discussed the nature of corroboration required in bribery cases, emphasizing that the evidence of a trap witness does not always need corroboration in material particulars but must be scrutinized carefully.

4. Sentencing:
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the offence occurred in 1987 and that the appellants had already suffered job loss and the agony of prolonged criminal proceedings. Considering these factors, the Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone while confirming the fines and default clauses. The appeals were dismissed with this modification in the sentence.