The demand of bribe is the basic element to record a case under the Anti-Corruption Act. The Bombay high court underlining this fact has observed that in case the demand of bribe by public servant was not proved, the accused should get benefit of doubt in a graft case.
Justice A.P. Bhangale of the Nagpur bench of the HC acquitted a court clerk, Yuvraj Selokar, after over seven years of his arrest for allegedly accepting a bribe of `300 for producing case papers, on the grounds that demand by him was not proved.
“It is a settled legal position that in order to prove the charge of corruption as punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution is required to prove that there was demand made by the accused, coupled with voluntary payment of bribe by the complainant and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused,” observed Justice Bhangale.
The HC observed that the public servant accused of bribery should get benefit of doubt if it was proved that he has not demanded the bribe. The court further said that if it is proved by the defence lawyer that the prosecution case was not genuine and that the money was accepted for any other reason, then merely the recovery from the accused would not prove the offence of corruption.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by Selokar challenging a June 2008 order of the sessions court sentencing him to one year rigorous imprisonment under the PC Act. He was arrested in 2005 for allegedly accepting bribe from a driver against whom an offence under the Motor Vehicles Act was registered.