2006 (12) TMI 580 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the demand for bribe.
2. Reliability of the trap proceedings and evidence.
3. Application of Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
4. High Court's interference with the Trial Court's judgment of acquittal.

Summary:

1. Legitimacy of the demand for bribe:
The appellant, a Surveyor in the Mandal Revenue Office, was accused of demanding a bribe of Rs. 2,000/- to allow the removal of casuarina trees. The demand was initially made by the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) for Rs. 5,000/-, which the appellant allegedly reduced to Rs. 2,000/-. The complaint was lodged 15 days after the alleged demand, during which the casuarina growth was already cut and removed by P.W.3 without further hindrance.

2. Reliability of the trap proceedings and evidence:
The Special Judge found several inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution's evidence. The trap proceedings were deemed unreliable due to the involvement of Shri Ram Murthy, who had animosity towards the appellant. The evidence showed that only the fingers of one hand turned pink despite the appellant allegedly counting the money with both hands. The post-trap panchnama was found to be interpolated, and the manner in which the trap was conducted raised doubts about its legitimacy.

3. Application of Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act:
The High Court relied on Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, presuming guilt based on the recovery of tainted money. However, the Supreme Court noted that the presumption u/s 20 arises only if the demand is proved, which was not the case here. The demand itself had not been substantiated, and the burden of proof on the accused is not as heavy as that on the prosecution.

4. High Court's interference with the Trial Court's judgment of acquittal:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for overturning the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal by the Special Judge. The High Court failed to apply the proper tests for interfering with an acquittal, especially when two views were possible. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should not have interfered in a "slipshod manner" and should have ensured that no two views were possible before reversing the acquittal.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, reinstating the acquittal of the appellant. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was discharged from the bail bonds.