Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra, through the Anti Corruption Bureau, Bhandara, filed an appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia in Special Criminal Case No.1/2008, whereby the respondent-accused, Baliram s/o Vithoba Bhute, a Forest Guard, was acquitted of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution case was that the complainant, Vilas Sahare, a Headmaster, had purchased teakwood doors and windows and used them in his house construction. On 24.11.2006, a mobile squad of the forest department, including the accused, visited his house and sought explanation. The accused allegedly demanded Rs.6000/- for not taking action, later negotiated to Rs.3000/-. The complainant lodged a report on 30.11.2006, and a trap was laid. The bribe amount of Rs.3000/- was treated with phenolphthalein powder, and the complainant was instructed to hand it over only on demand. The trap succeeded, and the accused was caught with the tainted notes. After investigation, chargesheet was filed. The trial court acquitted the accused, holding that the complainant was an interested witness, his testimony was unreliable, and the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The State appealed. The High Court examined the evidence, noting that the complainant had a grudge against the accused due to the earlier forest squad visit, and his testimony was not corroborated by independent witnesses. The shadow pancha turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. The recovery of tainted notes alone was insufficient to prove demand. The High Court held that the trial court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and no interference was warranted. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act - Acquittal - Appeal against acquittal - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The State appealed against acquittal of a Forest Guard for demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.3000/-. The trial court acquitted on grounds that complainant was an interested witness, his testimony was unreliable, and demand and acceptance were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court held that the trial court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and no interference was warranted. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-14) B) Evidence - Interested Witness - Corroboration - The complainant was found to be an interested witness as he had a grudge against the accused due to earlier forest squad visit. His testimony was not corroborated by independent witnesses. The High Court held that conviction cannot be based solely on testimony of an interested witness without corroboration. (Paras 10-12) C) Criminal Law - Demand and Acceptance - Proof - The prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The shadow pancha turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The recovery of tainted notes alone is insufficient to prove demand. (Paras 11-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court is confirmed.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is rebuttable
- Demand and acceptance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Complainant's testimony must be corroborated if interested
- Acquittal can be based on unreliable complainant and lack of corroboration
