Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra, through the Anti Corruption Bureau, Yavatmal, appealed against the judgment and order dated 24/01/2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, Yavatmal in Special Case No. 1 of 1995, whereby the respondent/accused, Ramkrushna s/o Punjabi Bobde, was acquitted of offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent was a Talathi at village Mankopra. The complainant, Dayaram Pundlik Padhen (PW1), a clerk in MSRTC, alleged that he purchased agricultural land and applied for mutation entry on 27/08/1993. The accused assured him that work would be done at Lohi camp. After waiting, the complainant met the accused on 24/09/1993, who allegedly demanded Rs. 200 for the mutation entry. The complainant approached the ACB on 5/10/1993, and a trap was laid on 6/10/1993. The trap allegedly resulted in recovery of Rs. 200 from the accused. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution evidence unreliable. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence. The complainant (PW1) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The panch witness (PW2) also turned hostile and gave inconsistent statements. The trap witness (PW3) was not independent. The court noted that the demand and acceptance of bribe were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not be invoked without proof of demand and acceptance. The court held that the trial court's findings were plausible and not perverse. 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), 13(2) - Presumption under Section 20 - The prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The trap witness (PW2) was declared hostile and his evidence was unreliable. The complainant's testimony was not corroborated by independent witnesses. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act does not arise unless demand and acceptance are first proved. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Act - Hostile Witness - Credibility - The evidence of a hostile witness cannot be relied upon without corroboration. PW2, the panch witness, turned hostile and his testimony was inconsistent. The court held that his evidence could not form the basis for conviction. (Paras 5-8) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Acquittal Appeal - Scope of Interference - The appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable. The trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and not perverse. (Paras 1, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent/accused for offences under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was justified given the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent/accused.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 arises only when demand and acceptance are proved
- Standard of proof in criminal cases is beyond reasonable doubt
- Evidence of trap witness requires corroboration
- Acquittal can be based on unreliability of prosecution witnesses
