Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment of the Special Judge, Sindhudurg at Oros, acquitting the respondent, Shridhar Madhavrao Murti, a Sub-Divisional Engineer (Planning) with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that the respondent demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 5,000 from the complainant, Narendra N. Deshpande (PW-1), a contractor, to clear a pending bill. The complainant had submitted a bill for work done in 2006, which was pending with the respondent. On 3rd April 2006, the complainant approached the respondent, who allegedly demanded Rs. 5,000 to clear the bill. The complainant lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau, and a trap was laid on 4th April 2006, resulting in the recovery of tainted money from the respondent. The trial court acquitted the respondent, finding the prosecution evidence unreliable. The High Court, on appeal, examined the evidence and found that the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and uncorroborated. The panch witness (PW-2) turned hostile, and the shadow witness did not support the prosecution. The court held that the demand of bribe was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to convict under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court also noted that the bill was already cleared before the alleged demand, and the complainant had no pending work with the respondent. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Demand of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Acquittal upheld as prosecution failed to prove demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt - The complainant's testimony was inconsistent and uncorroborated by independent witnesses - Held that mere recovery of tainted money without proof of demand is insufficient to convict (Paras 4-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The judgment and order dated 3rd June 2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, Sindhudurg at Oros in Special Case No.13 of 2009 acquitting the respondent is confirmed.
Law Points
- Demand of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Acquittal cannot be interfered with unless perverse
- Appreciation of evidence in corruption cases
