Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of Baburao Tayappa Mhetre (Respondent No.1) and Elahee Badshah Shaikh (Respondent No.2) by the Special Judge for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complainant, Mahesh Bhavsar, ran a workshop and received an excessive electricity bill for September 2003. He met Respondent No.1, a Junior Engineer, who along with linemen inspected the premises and disconnected the supply. The complainant alleged that Respondent No.1 demanded a bribe of Rs. 500 for restoration of supply, and Respondent No.2 acted as an intermediary. A trap was laid, and the bribe money was recovered from Respondent No.1. The trial court acquitted both accused, finding that the evidence of the complainant (PW1) and the panch witness (PW3) contained material variances regarding the demand. The State appealed, arguing that the variances were minor. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the variances highlighted by the trial court were not actually variances; the testimony of PW1 and PW3 was consistent on material aspects. However, the court noted that the trial court's view was a possible view, and the scope of appeal against acquittal is limited. The court held that unless the findings are perverse, the appellate court should not interfere. Since the trial court's conclusion that the demand was not proved was a plausible one, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption - Demand of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The prosecution must prove demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; variance in testimony of complainant and panch witness on material particulars can lead to acquittal. In this case, the trial court found variances on the point of demand, but the High Court held that the variances were not material and the evidence was consistent. However, the High Court declined to interfere with the acquittal due to limited scope of appeal. (Paras 1-2, 10-15) B) Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - The High Court's power to interfere with an acquittal is limited; unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable, the appellate court should not substitute its view. The court found that the trial court's view was a possible view, and thus upheld the acquittal. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Special Judge was right in acquitting the accused for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and whether the variances in evidence were material or minor.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondents.
Law Points
- Demand of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Variance in testimony on material particulars can lead to acquittal
- Scope of appeal against acquittal is limited
- Minor variances in evidence do not necessarily discredit prosecution
