Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ravindra s/o Marotrao Thakre, was convicted by the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2). He was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and fine for Section 7, and three years and fine for the other offence, with sentences to run concurrently. The appeal was admitted on 24.11.2005, and the appellant was released on bail. The trap was conducted on 11.10.1996 when the appellant was about 41 years old. The appellant challenged the conviction on two main grounds: first, that the sanction for prosecution granted by PW3 Shubhendu was vitiated due to non-application of mind, as he merely signed the draft sent by the Anti Corruption Bureau without calling for material papers; second, that the evidence of PW1 (complainant), PW2 (shadow witness), and the trap officers was mutually inconsistent, failing to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The court considered the submissions and found that the sanction was indeed vitiated as the sanctioning authority did not apply its mind independently. Additionally, the inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence created reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 - Validity - Sanction granted by PW3 Shubhendu was vitiated as he merely signed the draft sanction sent by ACB without calling for or examining material papers, showing non-application of mind - Held that sanction under Section 19 is not an empty formality and must be based on independent application of mind (Paras 5-6). B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) - Evidence - Testimony of PW1 complainant, PW2 shadow witness, and trap officers was mutually inconsistent, casting doubt on prosecution version - Held that burden on prosecution to prove demand and acceptance by cogent evidence was not discharged (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was validly granted, and whether the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 must be granted after application of mind to all relevant material
- mere signing of draft sanction sent by investigating agency vitiates the sanction. Evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe must be cogent and consistent
- inconsistencies in testimony of complainant
- shadow witness
- and trap officers create reasonable doubt.
