Indra Vijay Alok v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Background
The appellant, a Patwari (village revenue official) in Madhya Pradesh, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 1,000 from a complainant seeking mutation of land records in his and his mother's names after his uncle's death. A trap was laid by the Vigilance Department; the appellant was caught red-handed with the marked currency notes. The trial court convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the conviction on appeal, prompting this further appeal to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court rejected the appellant's arguments that the case should fail because one panch (independent) witness had turned hostile, the investigating officer could not be examined (he had since died), and the complainant's mother (from whom the initial demand was made) was not examined. The Court held that the testimony of the complainant, corroborated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and a Deputy Collector who was the appellant's own departmental superior, was credible and sufficient despite the hostile witness. It also invoked the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act that once acceptance of money is shown, corrupt motive is presumed unless rebutted, and found this presumption unrebutted here. Finding no illegality in the lower courts' appreciation of evidence or in the sentence imposed, the Court dismissed the appeal, cancelled the appellant's bail, and directed him to be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence.
Lesson Learnt
In bribery prosecutions, one hostile witness does not automatically collapse the case if other credible, corroborating testimony (including from a superior government officer) supports the prosecution's account, and once a public servant is shown to have accepted money, the law presumes it was a bribe unless the accused can affirmatively disprove it.