Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment dated 31st January 2012 of the Special Judge, Pune, acquitting Dr. Anil Kacharu Shinde, a medical officer, of charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complainant, Laxman Tukaram Pingale, alleged that on 12th February 2007, after being assaulted by his nephew, he went to Paud Police Station and was given a requisition letter to get medically examined at Gramin Rugnalaya, Paud. Dr. Shinde treated him and allegedly demanded Rs.100 to issue a medical certificate. Pingale complained to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), which laid a trap on 15th February 2007, but it was called off as the accused was on leave. A second trap on 20th February 2007 led to the accused's arrest. Sanction for prosecution was granted on 6th December 2008 by Shri S.B. Bhoir, Under Secretary. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution evidence unreliable. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the complainant's testimony was contradictory regarding the demand, the panch witnesses did not support the prosecution, and the trap proceedings were not properly conducted. The court noted that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not be invoked as demand and acceptance were not proved. The High Court concluded that the acquittal was based on a plausible view of the evidence and was not perverse, and therefore dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The appeal challenged acquittal of a medical officer for demanding Rs.100 for issuing a medical certificate - The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in evidence of complainant and panch witnesses, and the trap was not properly conducted - Held that acquittal was not perverse and no interference warranted (Paras 1-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent-accused under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent-accused.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 arises only when demand and acceptance are proved
- Burden of proof on prosecution to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt
- Acquittal not to be interfered with unless perverse or unreasonable
