Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of the respondent-accused, a Junior Engineer in the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (M.S.E.B.), for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case arose from an alleged demand of a bribe of Rs. 500 by the accused from the complainant, Devidas Chendbaji Wasule, for issuing a demand note for an electricity connection. The complainant had applied for an electricity connection for his well in 1991, and after delays, the accused allegedly demanded the bribe. A trap was laid, and the accused was caught accepting tainted currency notes. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court, on appeal, upheld the acquittal, noting that the evidence of the complainant and panch witnesses was inconsistent and that the demand was not clearly established. The court emphasized that mere recovery of tainted money is not enough to convict under the Prevention of Corruption Act; the demand must be proved. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Proof of Demand - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to sustain conviction. Held that the trial court's acquittal was proper as the evidence did not establish demand. (Paras 1-10) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Section 20 - When Presumption Arises - The presumption under Section 20 of the Act arises only when demand and acceptance are proved. In absence of such proof, the presumption cannot be invoked. Held that the trial court correctly did not apply the presumption. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was justified given the alleged demand and acceptance of bribe.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent-accused.
Law Points
- Demand of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act arises only when demand and acceptance are proved
- Acquittal justified when prosecution fails to establish demand
