Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order dated 25.5.2001 passed by the Special Judge, Solapur, acquitting the respondent Sardar Chandsaheb Silar of offences punishable under Section 7 (offence relating to public servant being bribed) and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) (criminal misconduct by a public servant) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case of the prosecution was that the complainant, Sandipan Ganpat More, resided in a slum area at Fakruddin Nagar, Solapur, in a house that belonged to him but his brother Shridhar More's name was entered in the municipal corporation records as owner. The complainant wanted to delete his brother's name and approached the respondent, who was a public servant. According to the complainant, the respondent demanded Rs.500 as bribe to get the work done. A trap was laid, and the respondent's hands were found to have anthracene powder, but the alleged bribe amount was found on the floor. The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The defence contended that the area where the complainant's house was situated was not within the control of the respondent, and therefore there was no question of the respondent dealing with the work. The defence also denied any demand or acceptance of bribe. The prosecution examined five witnesses: Dattatray Tukaram Pawar (panch witness), Nagendra Annarao Shimpi (colleague of accused), Sandipan Ganpat More (complainant), Krushnath Shekappa Bhandare (Assessment Assessor and Recovery Officer), and Bhaurao Rupchand Chavan (Investigating Officer). The trial court acquitted the respondent, and the State appealed. The High Court, after considering the evidence, held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the alleged bribe amount was found on the floor and not on the person of the accused, and there was no credible evidence of demand. The court upheld the acquittal, finding no reason to interfere with the trial court's order.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded and accepted a bribe. In this case, the alleged bribe amount was found on the floor and not on the person of the accused, and there was no credible evidence of demand. The trial court's acquittal was upheld as the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients. (Paras 1-6) B) Evidence - Anthracene Powder Test - Not Conclusive - The presence of anthracene powder on the hands of the accused does not by itself prove acceptance of bribe unless coupled with proof of demand. The court held that the test is only corroborative and cannot substitute substantive evidence of demand and acceptance. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent for offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was correct in law.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Acquittal of respondent upheld.
Law Points
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Anthracene powder test not conclusive without proof of demand
- Acquittal upheld if prosecution fails to prove essential ingredients
