In Brief
A Revenue Inspector was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding a Rs. 2,000 bribe to inspect trees damaged by drought. The Supreme Court allowed his appeal, finding material contradictions in witness testimony regarding how and when the alleged bribe was placed in the accused's motorcycle bag. The Court held that when the factum of demand is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act does not apply. Prior animus between the parties, the negative pH test, and the complainant's wife's testimony that she heard no demand, cumulatively created reasonable doubt. The conviction was set aside and the accused given the benefit of doubt.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.