The Supreme Court has acquitted two government employees accused of bribery, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish both the demand and acceptance of the alleged bribe.
Emphasizing the legal principle that a presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, cannot be invoked unless these key elements are proven, the Court underscored the necessity of independent witness testimony in corruption cases. Any contradictions or hostile witnesses, the Court noted, can cast significant doubt on the prosecution’s claims.
In this case, the prosecution asserted that bribe money was recovered from the accused’s pockets, with chemical tests confirming traces on their hands and clothing. However, independent witnesses contradicted this narrative, stating that the money was found scattered on the floor. The Court viewed this inconsistency as a critical flaw in the case.
“Testimony from the trap team leader simply referred to recovery from the accused, but this directly contradicts independent witness accounts that some of the notes were found on the floor. None of the officers stated that the accused retrieved the money and discarded it,” the judgment observed.
Concluding that the prosecution had not proven the bribery allegations beyond reasonable doubt, the Court ruled that no presumption under Section 20 could apply. Consequently, it overturned the convictions upheld by both the Trial Court and High Court, fully acquitting the accused.