Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order dated 29th January 2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay in ACB Special Case No. 50 of 2006, whereby the respondent (original accused) was acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent was serving as an Assistant Police Inspector at MIDC Police Station, Mumbai. On 16th February 2005, one Harjindersingh was arrested in connection with Crime No. 62/05. His brother Ranjit Tagge, who was acquainted with the complainant Jeevan Jadhav, informed the complainant about the arrest. On 18th February 2005, the complainant and Ranjit met the accused and inquired about the arrest. On 23rd February 2005, the accused allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs.50,000/- for facilitating Harjindersingh's release on bail, which was later negotiated to Rs.15,000/- with a first installment of Rs.5,000/-. The complainant, unwilling to pay, lodged a report with the Anti Corruption Bureau. A trap was laid on 24th February 2005, and the accused was caught accepting the bribe amount. The trial court acquitted the accused primarily on the ground of invalid sanction and improbability of demand and acceptance of bribe. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found no merit in the appeal. The court noted that the sanction order was invalid as the sanctioning authority did not apply its independent mind, and the evidence regarding demand and acceptance was inconsistent and unreliable. The High Court held that the trial court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption - Sanction for Prosecution - Invalid Sanction - The sanction order under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 must be valid and based on proper application of mind - The court below found the sanction invalid as the sanctioning authority did not independently apply its mind, which vitiated the trial - Held that the trial court's finding on invalid sanction was correct and did not warrant interference (Paras 4-6). B) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe with cogent evidence - The evidence of complainant and panch witnesses was inconsistent and unreliable, and the trap proceedings were not properly conducted - Held that the acquittal based on improbability of demand and acceptance was justified (Paras 7-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was justified on grounds of invalid sanction and lack of proof of demand and acceptance of bribe.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay in ACB Special Case No. 50 of 2006 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Invalid sanction order vitiates trial
- Demand and acceptance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Acquittal in corruption appeal requires strong grounds to interfere
