Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order dated 10/08/2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, Nagpur in Special Case No. 31 of 1989, whereby the respondent/accused Suresh Krishnarao Nandanwar was acquitted of offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 5(1)(d) read with Sections 5(2) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case arose from a complaint lodged by Abdul Azim on 19/08/1988 with the Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur. The complainant alleged that his father was a tenant in a dilapidated house owned by Shaikh Usman, and the landlord refused to carry out repairs despite a notice from the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The complainant obtained permission from the Municipal Commissioner to carry out repairs himself. On 18/08/1988, when he approached the Building department, the accused, who was a Technical Assistant, allegedly demanded Rs.500 to issue a notice to the tenant, later reduced to Rs.300, and threatened that without payment the repairs could not proceed. The complainant reluctantly agreed but instead lodged a complaint with the ACB. A trap was laid on 19/08/1988, and the accused was caught with the bribe money. However, during trial, the independent panch witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The complainant's testimony was found to be unreliable and lacking corroboration. The trial court acquitted the accused, giving him the benefit of doubt. On appeal, the High Court heard submissions from both sides and perused the evidence. The court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - Appeal against acquittal - Complainant alleged demand of Rs.300 by accused, a Technical Assistant in Nagpur Municipal Corporation, for issuing notice to tenant - Trap laid, but independent panch witness turned hostile and complainant's testimony found unreliable - Held that prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt; acquittal upheld (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was justified on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 10/08/2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, Nagpur in Special Case No. 31 of 1989 is upheld.
Law Points
- Acquittal upheld
- demand of bribe not proved
- trap witness unreliable
- no corroboration
- benefit of doubt
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 Sections 7
- 13(1)(d) read with 13(2)
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (07) 143
Criminal Appeal No.313 of 2000
Mr. K.L. Dharmadhikar, A.P.P. for Appellant/State; Mr. M. Faiyazkhan, Adv. for Respondent
The State of Maharashtra, through Police Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur
Suresh s/o Krishnarao Nandanwar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against acquittal in a corruption case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Remedy Sought
The State of Maharashtra sought reversal of the acquittal of the respondent and conviction for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Filing Reason
The respondent was acquitted by the Special Judge, Nagpur on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
Previous Decisions
The Special Judge, Nagpur acquitted the respondent in Special Case No. 31 of 1989 on 10/08/2000.
Issues
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.300 from the complainant?
Whether the acquittal was justified given that the independent panch witness turned hostile and the complainant's testimony was unreliable?
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant/State argued that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite the trap being successful and the recovery of bribe money.
The respondent argued that the prosecution case was not reliable as the panch witness turned hostile and the complainant's testimony lacked corroboration.
Ratio Decidendi
In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere unless the findings of the trial court are perverse or unreasonable. The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. When the independent trap witness turns hostile and the complainant's testimony is unreliable, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
Judgment Excerpts
The appeal is filed against the Judgment and order dated 10/08/2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, Nagpur in Special Case No. 31 of 1989 whereby the respondent/accused was acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 5(1) (d) read with Sections 5(2) and 13(1)(d) read further with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Heard the submissions by the respective counsel. Perused the evidence on record and the impugned Judgment and order.
Procedural History
The respondent was tried in Special Case No. 31 of 1989 before the Special Judge, Nagpur for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court acquitted him on 10/08/2000. The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal in Criminal Appeal No.313 of 2000 before the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench. The High Court heard the appeal and dismissed it on 11/07/2012.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Section 7, Section 5(1)(d), Section 5(2), Section 13(1)(d), Section 13(2)
