Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment of the Special Judge (P.C. Act), Raigad, dated 29.9.2004, acquitting the respondent (accused) of offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case arose from an alleged demand of Rs.1000/- bribe by the accused, who was an Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, from the complainant, Gopinath Harischandra Devale, the secretary of Roha Taluka Krishi Audyogik Shetkari Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh Ltd. The accused had conducted an audit of the society's accounts on 20.4.2001 and pointed out irregularities. The complainant alleged that the accused demanded a bribe for a favourable report. A trap was laid on 28.4.2001, and the accused was caught with anthracene marks on his hand and pocket. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution case weak. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the complainant's testimony was unreliable and uncorroborated. The independent panch witnesses turned hostile. The sanction order was also found to be invalid as the sanctioning authority did not apply its mind. The court held that the acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence and was not perverse. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The prosecution failed to prove that the accused demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.1000/- from the complainant for giving a favourable audit report. The complainant's testimony was unreliable and uncorroborated, and the trap witnesses turned hostile. The appellate court declined to interfere with the acquittal as the findings were not perverse. (Paras 1-12) B) Evidence - Hostile Witness - Corroboration - The independent panch witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The complainant's evidence was not corroborated by any other witness. The court held that in the absence of corroboration, the conviction cannot be sustained. (Paras 5-10) C) Sanction - Validity - Section 19 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The sanction order was held to be invalid as the sanctioning authority did not apply its mind independently and merely acted on the request of the investigating agency. The court noted that the sanction was granted without proper scrutiny of the material. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The acquittal of the respondent for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is upheld.
Law Points
- Acquittal upheld if prosecution fails to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt
- Complainant's testimony must be corroborated in trap cases
- Sanction order must be valid and based on material
- Appellate court should not interfere unless findings are perverse
