Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of Shashikant Dnyanu Jadhav, a police constable, who was charged under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case arose from a bribe demand by Police Head Constable Sandbhor, who instructed Jadhav to accept Rs. 1,500 from the complainant, Mahendra Gujar, for the return of his tempo's RC book and license. A trap was laid on 19 April 1995, and Jadhav was caught accepting the bribe. The trial court acquitted Jadhav, primarily because the complainant turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The High Court, however, found that the trial court had completely ignored the evidence of the panch witness (PW-2), who was an independent witness and had corroborated the trap proceedings. The High Court re-appreciated the evidence and held that the demand and acceptance were proved through the panch witness's testimony and the contemporaneous documents, including the seizure memos and the chemical analysis report showing anthracene powder on Jadhav's hands. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), which held that conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence even if the complainant turns hostile, and that demand and acceptance are sine qua non for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act. The High Court concluded that the trial court's acquittal was perverse and set it aside, convicting Jadhav under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000, with default simple imprisonment for three months.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance - Sine Qua Non - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Proof of demand and acceptance is essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act; demand must be proved first, then acceptance; both can be proved by direct oral evidence or circumstantial evidence; if illegal gratification is paid without prior demand, it is a case of acceptance under Section 7; if there is demand and then acceptance, it is obtainment under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) (Paras 1, 17-18). B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Foundational Facts - Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Presumption under Section 20 can be drawn only when foundational facts of demand and acceptance are proved; even if complainant dies, is not available, or turns hostile, the offence can be proved by examining other witnesses or by circumstantial evidence or through documents (Para 1). C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Acquittal - Appellate Court's Power - Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court can re-appreciate evidence and reverse the acquittal if the trial court's view is perverse or unreasonable; the High Court, being the last fact-finding court, can consider evidence overlooked by the trial court (Paras 2-4, 19-20). D) Evidence - Hostile Witness - Panch Witness - Credibility - Sections 154, 155 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - When the de facto complainant turns hostile, the evidence of the panch witness and other circumstantial evidence can be relied upon to prove demand and acceptance; the trial court's failure to consider the panch witness evidence amounts to a dereliction of duty (Paras 2-4, 19-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondent police constable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, can be set aside when the de facto complainant turned hostile but the panch witness evidence was available and not considered by the trial court.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and convicted the respondent under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000, with default simple imprisonment for three months.
Law Points
- Demand and acceptance are sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- Presumption under Section 20 can be drawn only after foundational facts of demand and acceptance are proved
- Conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence even if complainant turns hostile
- Panch witness evidence is crucial and must be considered by trial court.
