Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Kailas Ramdas Sangle, was an Assistant Police Inspector (API) with the Crime Branch, Mumbai, and was convicted by the Special Judge, Greater Mumbai on 31.03.2018 for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case arose from an allegation that the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 2 lakh from the complainant, Rizwankhan Isar Ahmed, who was in his custody in connection with C.R. No.31 of 2014 involving transportation of illicit Gutkha. The appellant allegedly agreed to accept Rs. 1 lakh as the first installment, which was paid by one Abu Barkatali in the presence of the complainant. After the complainant was released on bail, the appellant allegedly demanded the remaining Rs. 1 lakh from PW-8 Ranjitsingh. The complainant lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau on 25.04.2014, and a trap was laid on 26.04.2014, during which the appellant was caught accepting Rs. 1 lakh. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to 2 years rigorous imprisonment for each offence. The appellant appealed against the conviction, and the State appealed for enhancement of sentence. The High Court heard the appeals together. The appellant's counsel argued that there was no demand by the appellant, as the demand was made by PW-8 Ranjitsingh, and that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. He also pointed out discrepancies in the transcript and audio recording, and argued that the sanction for prosecution was defective. The court analyzed the evidence and found that the prosecution had not proved the demand by the appellant. The court noted that the transcript and audio clip had material discrepancies, and the voices were not clearly identifiable. The court also observed that the trial judge had not properly appreciated the evidence. Consequently, the court allowed the appellant's appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant. The State's appeal for enhancement of sentence was dismissed as infructuous.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Proof of Demand - The prosecution must prove demand of bribe by the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the evidence showed that the alleged demand was made by PW-8 Ranjitsingh, not by the appellant, and there were material discrepancies in the transcript and audio recording. Held that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance, and the conviction was set aside (Paras 12-13, 15). B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 - Validity of Sanction - The sanction order must be valid and the sanctioning authority must be examined. The appellant raised the ground that the sanction was defective and the sanctioning authority was not examined. The court noted that the sanction was admitted during cross-examination but did not cure the defect. Held that the sanction issue was not fully addressed but the acquittal was based on lack of proof of demand (Paras 11, 13). C) Evidence Act - Electronic Evidence - Section 65B - Certificate and Hash Value - The prosecution must produce a proper certificate under Section 65B and establish the hash value of electronic recordings. Discrepancies between the transcript and the audio clip heard in court raised doubts about the reliability of the evidence. Held that the electronic evidence was not reliable (Paras 13, 15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant demanded and accepted illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed Criminal Appeal No. 484 of 2018, set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.03.2018, and acquitted the appellant of all charges. Criminal Appeal No. 1494 of 2018 filed by the State for enhancement of sentence was dismissed as infructuous.
Law Points
- Demand of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Sanction order validity requires examination of sanctioning authority
- Discrepancies in electronic evidence affect credibility
- Conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof of demand and acceptance
