Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of the respondent, Mallinath Rajaram Harsure, who was originally accused No.1 in Special (ACB) Case No. 4 of 2005, for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent was working as an Inspector in the Social Welfare Department, Zilla Parishad, Solapur. The complainant, Mahendra Aurangabadkar (PW-1), a stamp vendor, had performed an inter-caste marriage and received an initial grant of Rs.5,500/-. In 1995, the Government declared an additional grant of Rs.9,500/-. The complainant alleged that the respondent demanded a bribe of Rs.1,000/- to process his application for the additional grant. The complainant lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau, which laid a trap. The trial court acquitted the respondent, finding the prosecution case not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of the trap witness (PW-2), who was found to be unreliable and not independent. The court noted that the demand was not proved and the acceptance of bribe was not established. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act does not arise unless demand is proved. The court also reiterated that in an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only if the findings are perverse or unreasonable. The trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and not perverse. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - The prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt as the trap witness (PW-2) was unreliable and there was no independent corroboration. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act does not arise unless demand is proved. (Paras 5-10) B) Criminal Appeal - Appeal Against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - The High Court reiterated that an appeal against acquittal can be allowed only if the findings of the trial court are perverse or unreasonable. The trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and not perverse. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 21st May 2010 passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Special (ACB) Case No. 4 of 2005 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 does not arise if demand is not proved
- Trap witness must be independent and reliable
- Acquittal can be reversed only if perverse or unreasonable
