Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra, through the Central Bureau of Investigation, appealed against the judgment and order dated 19.9.1997 passed by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Nagpur in Special Case No.16 of 1992, whereby the respondent Padmakar B. Dandekar was acquitted of offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The case arose from a complaint by Javherchand Shankarlal Sonar, an Examiner in the Inspectorate of Armaments, who alleged that he was prosecuted under Section 420 IPC in 1982, convicted by the trial magistrate, and later acquitted on appeal in 1985. During his suspension from 4.2.1983 to 16.3.1986, he was not paid salary. He claimed that the respondent, a U.D.C. in the same office, demanded a bribe of Rs.500 to process his salary claim. A trap was laid, and tainted money was recovered from the respondent. The trial court acquitted the respondent, finding the prosecution evidence unreliable. The High Court, hearing the appeal, examined the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the trap witnesses were not independent and their testimony lacked corroboration. The mere recovery of tainted money was insufficient to establish guilt. The court also observed that the respondent had no motive to demand a bribe as he was not the sanctioning authority. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 120-B, 161 IPC, Sections 5(1)(d), 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Prosecution failed to prove that the accused demanded and accepted illegal gratification - Acquittal upheld as the evidence of trap witnesses was not corroborated and the recovery of tainted money alone is insufficient to establish guilt (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent for offences under Section 120-B read with Section 161 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was justified on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal of the respondent.
Law Points
- Acquittal cannot be reversed unless perverse or unreasonable
- Burden of proof on prosecution to prove demand and acceptance of bribe
- Corroboration of trap witnesses essential
- Mere recovery of tainted money not sufficient to prove corruption
