Case Note & Summary
The matter involved a criminal appeal under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, filed by a Superintendent of the State Excise Department at Ratnagiri against his conviction by the Special Judge. The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine. The background of the case indicated that the complainant, Rajaram Gadade, had held a CLIII license for retail sale of country liquor since 1973, renewed until 1989, and thereafter allowed to lapse. In 1999, he applied for renewal, which was initially granted by the Commissioner but suspended by the State Government. After a prolonged process, the Hon’ble Minister for State Excise allowed the revision petition in February 2013, directing renewal of the license upon payment of fees for the intervening years. The complainant thereafter approached the appellant for renewal, but the appellant gave evasive replies. On 30 July 2013, the appellant allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs.10 lakh by showing ten fingers and also orally demanded the amount. Unwilling to pay, the complainant lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Thane on 12 August 2013. A trap was arranged for 13 August 2013 but was postponed because the appellant sent an SMS stating he would be in office on 14 August. On 14 August 2013, after pre-trap formalities including treatment of currency notes with anthracene powder, the complainant, his partner Rajendra Ghosalkar, and a shadow panch visited the appellant’s office. The complainant had withdrawn Rs.5 lakh from his bank as part payment. In the appellant’s cabin, the appellant allegedly asked how much money was brought and, upon being told Rs.5 lakh, gestured to place the amount in his table drawer. The demand was allegedly reduced to Rs.9 lakh, with the balance Rs.4 lakh to be paid later. The complainant then placed the tainted currency notes in the drawer. The judgment text ends at this point, and the final reasoning and decision of the High Court are not available in the provided excerpt. The appeal was taken up for final hearing pursuant to orders of a coordinate Bench and the Supreme Court, and judgment was pronounced on 9 September 2019, but the outcome is unknown from the given text. The central legal issue was whether the conviction based on the evidence of demand and acceptance was sustainable. Submissions of the parties and the court’s analysis are not mentioned in the available portion.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bribery and Illegal Gratification - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The appellant, a public servant, was convicted by the Special Judge for demanding Rs.10 lakh and accepting Rs.5 lakh as bribe for renewal of a CLIII liquor license - Appeal filed challenging conviction - Not mentioned (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is justified on the basis of the evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe.
Law Points
- Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by public servant
- trap procedure
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- Sections 7
- 13(1)(d)
- 13(2)
