High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad Hears Criminal Appeal Against Conviction Under Prevention of Corruption Act. Appeal Challenges Conviction and Sentence for Offences Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act Imposed by Special Judge, Beed.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Sudhakar Dound, a police constable, was convicted by the Special Judge, Beed for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe from the complainant Vijaykumar Waghmare. The prosecution case was that after a fight involving the complainant's brother, the accused, along with PSI Phad, demanded Rs.500, of which Rs.200 was paid on 16.1.1995. Further demands were made and a trap was laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau on 19.1.1995, where the accused was caught accepting Rs.300. The defence was total denial and claimed false implication to involve PSI Phad. The appeal challenged the conviction and sentence.

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellant committed the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2010 LawText (BOM) (06) 25

Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2004

2010-06-22

Shrihari P. Davare

Mr. SP Brahme, Mr. SD Kaldate

Sudhakar s/o Jalindar Dound

The State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence under Prevention of Corruption Act

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought setting aside of conviction and sentence

Filing Reason

The appellant was convicted by trial court for demanding and accepting bribe and filed appeal challenging the conviction

Previous Decisions

Convicted by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Beed in Special Case No. 51 of 1997 on 30.01.2004, sentencing to 1 year RI and fine under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act

Issues

Whether the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the sanction for prosecution was valid. Whether the conviction and sentence are sustainable.

Submissions/Arguments

Prosecution argued that the accused demanded and accepted Rs.200 as bribe initially and later Rs.300, and the trap confirmed the acceptance, along with anthracene powder evidence and panch witnesses. Defence argued total denial and that the complainant's brother had quarreled with PSI Phad, and to involve PSI Phad in trouble, a false complaint was lodged against the accused involving PSI Phad.

Judgment Excerpts

The defence of the accused is of total denial and his defence is revealed from the crossexamination and the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein, he stated that brother of the complainant Vijaykumar, viz. Prakash had quarreled with PSI Phad and therefore in order to bring PSI Phad in trouble, such false complaint was lodged against him, involving PSI Phad in it.

Procedural History

The appellant was convicted by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Beed in Spl. Case No. 51 of 1997 on 30.01.2004 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced to RI for 1 year and fine. Appeal filed in High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad.

Acts & Sections

  • Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2)
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 313
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition of Assistant Professors Claiming Professor's Pay Scale Under Career Advancement Scheme — Nominal Designation as Associate Professor Without Substantive Appointment Does Not Entitle to Higher Pay Scale. The ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Suit for Specific Performance of Property Sale Agreement Due to Plaintiffs' Default and Unauthorized Payments. Plaintiffs Failed to Pay Balance Consideration Within Stipulated 10-Month Period and Dealt with Sole Director C...