Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order dated 19 June 2001 passed by the Special Judge, Pune, acquitting the respondent Bajarang Shankarrao Bodhane of offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case arose from a complaint by Baban Ganpat Sathe (PW-1), a farmer, who alleged that the respondent, a Nimtandar (Surveyor) in the Land Record office at Shirur, demanded a bribe of Rs.1,000/- to correct land records. The complainant claimed that after earlier bribes paid to another officer Kamalakar Joshi did not yield results, the respondent demanded Rs.1,000/- and refused to do the work unless paid. On 9 December 1996, the complainant met the respondent who again demanded the bribe, leading the complainant to approach the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). A trap was laid on 10 December 1996, and the respondent was caught accepting the tainted money. The trial court acquitted the respondent, finding the prosecution case not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and unreliable. The panch witness (PW-3) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. The recovery of money from the respondent was not disputed, but the court held that mere recovery without proof of demand and acceptance was insufficient to invoke the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act. The court noted that the complainant had a motive to falsely implicate the respondent due to previous disputes. The High Court concluded that the trial court's findings were plausible and not perverse, and therefore, no interference was warranted. The appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Acquittal - Appeal against acquittal - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) PC Act - The State appealed against acquittal of a public servant for demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.1,000/-. The High Court held that the complainant's testimony was unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration, and the presumption under Section 20 could not be invoked as acceptance was not proved. The acquittal was upheld as not perverse. (Paras 1-14) B) Evidence - Corroboration - Trap case - The court noted that the complainant's evidence was not corroborated by independent witnesses, and the panch witness turned hostile. The recovery of tainted money alone was insufficient to prove demand and acceptance. (Paras 6-12) C) Criminal Law - Appeal against acquittal - Scope - The High Court reiterated that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable. The trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible. (Paras 13-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was perverse and required interference by the High Court.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act arises only when acceptance of bribe is proved
- Burden of proof on prosecution to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt
- Acquittal cannot be interfered with unless perverse or unreasonable
- Appellate court's limited scope in appeal against acquittal
