Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment of the Special Judge, Kolhapur, acquitting the respondent Sikandar Khutubuddin Mujawar of charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complainant, Dattatray Patil, alleged that the respondent, a surveyor in the Taluka Inspector of Land Records office, demanded a bribe of Rs.400/- to measure his mother's land. The complainant paid Rs.200/- as part of the bribe in a trap laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. The trial court acquitted the respondent, finding the prosecution evidence unreliable, particularly the testimony of the panch witness who was declared hostile and the complainant's inconsistent statements. The High Court, in appeal, held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act does not arise unless demand and acceptance are proved. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove demand beyond reasonable doubt, as the trap witness was unreliable and the complainant's evidence lacked corroboration. The High Court concluded that the trial court's findings were plausible and not perverse, and therefore, the acquittal was upheld. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Presumption under Section 20 - The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act is rebuttable and does not arise unless demand and acceptance are proved. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove demand beyond reasonable doubt as the trap witness (panch) was unreliable and the complainant's evidence was not corroborated. The acquittal was upheld as the findings were not perverse. (Paras 1-13) B) Criminal Appeal - Acquittal Appeal - Interference by High Court - The court reiterated that in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court should not interfere unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable. The trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and not vitiated by any error of law. (Paras 1-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was perverse and liable to be set aside.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is rebuttable
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Evidence of trap witnesses requires corroboration
- Acquittal cannot be interfered with unless perverse or unreasonable
