Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of Suresh Baliram Rane, a Taluka Inspector of Land Records, who was charged under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complainant, Prasad Naik, alleged that on 15.11.2008, the accused demanded and accepted Rs.4,000 as gratification for measuring his land. A trap was laid, and the accused was caught. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution evidence unreliable. The High Court, in appeal, held that the trial court's judgment was not perverse and dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Section 378 CrPC - Perversity - The High Court can re-appreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal only if the trial court's judgment is perverse, i.e., against the weight of evidence. (Para 3)
B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the evidence of the complainant and panch witnesses was contradictory and unreliable, and the trial court's acquittal was not perverse. (Paras 4-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge was perverse and liable to be set aside in appeal under Section 378 CrPC.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Order of acquittal dated 17th November, 2011 passed by Special Judge, Sindhudurg at Oras in Special Case No.11/2010 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- re-appreciation of evidence
- perversity
- standard of proof in corruption cases
- demand and acceptance of bribe
- credibility of trap witnesses
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (01) 60
Criminal Appeal No. 570 of 2012
Mr. Yogesh Dabke (APP for State), Mr. A.S. Khandeparkar a/w. Mr. Rohit P. Mahadik a/w. Mr. Rajdeep Gude, a/w. Mr. Shubham Javlekar i/by. Khandeparkar & Associates (for respondent)
State of Maharashtra, through Dipak Bhaskar Bandekar, Dy.S.P., Anti-Corruption Bureau, Sindhudurg
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against acquittal in a corruption case
Remedy Sought
State sought setting aside of acquittal and conviction of the accused
Filing Reason
State aggrieved by acquittal of respondent for offences under Prevention of Corruption Act
Previous Decisions
Trial court acquitted the accused on 17th November, 2011 in Special Case No.11/2010
Issues
Whether the order of acquittal was perverse and liable to be set aside
Submissions/Arguments
State argued that trial court's judgment was perverse and evidence was sufficient for conviction
Respondent argued that acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence and not perverse
Ratio Decidendi
In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court can re-appreciate evidence only if the trial court's judgment is perverse. The trial court's findings were based on contradictions in prosecution evidence and were not against the weight of evidence. Hence, acquittal upheld.
Judgment Excerpts
This is an, appeal preferred by the State, under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the order of acquittal dated 17th November, 2011 passed by the Special Judge, Sindhudurg at Oras in Special Case No.11/2010.
That before adverting to the facts of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Prosecutor for the State in support of Appeal and Mr. Khandeparkar, learned Counsel for the respondent, it may be stated that, in the proceedings instituted against the order of acquittal, it is open to the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and conclusions drawn by the trial Court but only in a case when judgment of the trial Court is stated to be perverse.
Procedural History
The respondent was charged and tried in Special Case No.11/2010 before the Special Judge, Sindhudurg at Oras. The trial court acquitted the respondent on 17th November, 2011. The State appealed against the acquittal under Section 378 CrPC before the Bombay High Court, which dismissed the appeal on 11th January, 2021.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 378
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2)
