Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of Avinash Sadashiv Khristi and Arun Shivaji Chavan, who were accused of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case involved allegations that accused no.1, a Junior Engineer at MSEB, and accused no.2, a wireman, demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.1,500 from the complainant Baburao Murlidhar Ingole to return a starter that had been removed from his agricultural pump. The trial court acquitted the accused, and the High Court upheld the acquittal. The court found that the complainant's testimony was unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration from independent witnesses. The panch witness turned hostile, and the trap was not properly conducted. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution and that the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act cannot be invoked without proving the foundational facts of demand and acceptance. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Standard of Proof - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7, 12, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) - Acquittal upheld where complainant's testimony was unreliable and uncorroborated - The court held that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption under Section 20 could not be invoked due to lack of foundational evidence (Paras 1-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was justified given the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; acquittal of respondents upheld.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence in corruption cases
- standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
- credibility of complainant
- necessity of corroboration
- presumption under Section 20 of PC Act not automatic
