Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of Prakash Pandharinath Rajput, a Police Sub-Inspector, who was charged with demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 3,500/- on 27th December 2006, for showing favour in an investigation under Section 420 IPC and the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act. The de facto complainant, Sanjay Desai, alleged that Rajput initially demanded Rs. 15,000/- in July 2006, accepted Rs. 3,000/- on 15th December 2006, and agreed to accept Rs. 7,000/- on 27th December 2006. A trap was laid, but Rajput changed the location from the police station to various spots in Nashik, ultimately accepting Rs. 3,500/- near Sharda Girls High School. The trial court acquitted Rajput, finding the evidence of demand and acceptance untrustworthy due to inconsistencies: Desai's earlier complaint to the Commissioner of Police (Exhibit-15) and his anticipatory bail application did not mention the initial demand of Rs. 15,000/- or the part payment of Rs. 3,000/-. The trial court also noted a variance in the object of demand (deletion of sections vs. bail). The High Court, in appeal, upheld the acquittal. It agreed that the omissions in Desai's prior documents cast serious doubt on his credibility regarding the demand and part payment. While the High Court disagreed with the trial court's reasoning on the variance in the object of demand, it held that the core finding on demand and acceptance was not perverse and did not warrant interference. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Demand and Acceptance - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court found the evidence of the de facto complainant unreliable due to inconsistencies in his previous complaints and anticipatory bail application, which omitted crucial details of demand and part payment. The appellate court agreed that such omissions create doubt and upheld the acquittal. (Paras 5-7, 29-30) B) Evidence Act - Presumption under Section 114 - Variance in Object of Demand - Section 114 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The trial court drew an adverse inference against the prosecution due to variance in the object of demand (deletion of sections vs. bail). However, the appellate court disagreed, noting that the original case was about deletion of sections and the conversation at the spot about bail was procedural. Nevertheless, the appellate court did not overturn the acquittal as the demand and acceptance evidence was already found unreliable. (Paras 10-11) C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - Section 378 Cr.P.C. - The appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable. Here, the trial court's findings on demand and acceptance were based on material inconsistencies and were not perverse, hence the appeal was dismissed. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondent for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on unreliable evidence of demand and acceptance, is correct and warrants interference by the appellate court.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the acquittal of the respondent. The court held that the trial court's findings on demand and acceptance were not perverse and did not warrant interference.
Law Points
- Demand and acceptance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Variance in object of demand raises doubt
- Previous consistent conduct is relevant
- Sanction order validity not challenged
