Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment of the Special Judge, Kolhapur, dated 2nd June 2003, acquitting the respondents (accused) of offences under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution case was that the complainant, Pandit Bhausaheb Ranadiwe (PW-1), owned agricultural land and sought mutation of his name in revenue records after his father's death. Accused No.1, Masu Krishna Chavan, was the Circle Officer, and accused No.2, Eknath Parasu Satpute, was alleged to have abetted the demand and acceptance of a bribe of Rs.500. The complainant alleged that accused No.1 demanded the bribe to process the mutation, and accused No.2 accepted the money on his behalf. A trap was laid, and the tainted currency notes were recovered from accused No.2. However, during trial, the complainant turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. He denied any demand or payment of bribe. The trial court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court, in appeal, upheld the acquittal, noting that the complainant's testimony was unreliable, the panch witnesses did not corroborate the demand, and the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act could not be invoked without proof of demand. The court found no perversity in the trial court's reasoning and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Acquittal - Appeal against acquittal - Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2) PC Act - The State appealed against acquittal of a Circle Officer and another for demanding and accepting bribe for mutation of land records. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the complainant's testimony was unreliable, the demand was not proved, and the presumption under Section 20 did not arise. The acquittal was not perverse. (Paras 1-15) B) Evidence - Complainant's credibility - Hostile witness - The complainant turned hostile and resiled from his police statement. The court held that his testimony could not be relied upon without corroboration, and the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 4-10) C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and acceptance - Section 7, 13(1)(d) PC Act - The court held that mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient; demand and acceptance must be proved. In this case, the complainant's version was inconsistent and unsupported, leading to acquittal. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was perverse and liable to be set aside.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Acquittal of accused upheld.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act not automatic
- demand and acceptance must be proved
- complainant's testimony must be reliable and corroborated
- acquittal cannot be reversed unless perverse
