The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court reviewed the conviction of Shri Shankar Babarao Mukkawar, a former Executive Engineer with the Maharashtra Jivan Pradhikaran (MJP), who had been convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court scrutinized the original trial, highlighting the issues with the validity of the sanction and the evidence presented. The court ultimately found that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly questioning the demand for a bribe, and the legitimacy of the sanctioning authority. As the accused had passed away during the appeal process, his wife, Smt. Anita Shankar Mukkawar, was substituted as the appellant. The court set aside the conviction, providing relief to the appellant's legal heir.

1. Introduction

• The case involves the appeal against the conviction of Shri Shankar Babarao Mukkawar, who was found guilty of corruption while serving as an Executive Engineer with the Maharashtra Jivan Pradhikaran.

2. Background of the Case

• Shri Shankar Mukkawar was accused of demanding a bribe for reducing a fine imposed on a contractor. The trial court convicted him based on evidence presented by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB).

3. Appeal Grounds

• The appeal challenged the validity of the sanction provided for prosecution, arguing it was granted without proper authority or application of mind.
• It also questioned the sufficiency and reliability of the evidence, particularly the alleged bribe demand.

4. Court’s Analysis

• The court examined the procedural aspects, including the legitimacy of the sanctioning authority and the evidence regarding the bribe demand.
• The testimony of key witnesses was scrutinized, and the court noted discrepancies and lapses in the prosecution's case.

5. Judgment

• The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The court set aside the conviction, providing relief to the appellant's legal heir, Smt. Anita Shankar Mukkawar.

6. Conclusion

• The judgment highlights the importance of proper sanction and the need for conclusive evidence in corruption cases. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was overturned.