Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed by Rajendra Nivruti Gaikwad and Shivaji Kautik Patil, who were convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- each by the Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Thane in Special Case No.1/2007. The prosecution case was that the appellants, a Traffic Constable and a Police Naik, demanded a bribe of Rs.50/- from the complainant for returning his driving license which was taken for a traffic violation. The trial court convicted them. On appeal, the High Court examined the legality of the conviction. The court noted that the sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not obtained, which is mandatory. Additionally, the evidence of the complainant and panch witness was inconsistent regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. The court directed that the bail bonds be cancelled and the fine, if paid, be refunded.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Mandatory requirement - The court held that sanction under Section 19 is a prerequisite for taking cognizance of offences under the Act. In the absence of valid sanction, the trial is vitiated. (Para 5) B) Criminal Law - Corruption - Demand and Acceptance - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Proof - The court held that the prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. Inconsistent evidence regarding demand and recovery leads to benefit of doubt to accused. (Paras 6-8) C) Criminal Law - Evidence - Inconsistencies - Acquittal - The court found material inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and panch witness, regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe. Held that such inconsistencies entitle the accused to acquittal. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in the absence of valid sanction and in light of inconsistent evidence.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted. Bail bonds cancelled. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act is mandatory
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Inconsistent evidence leads to acquittal
