Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order dated 23rd October 2012 passed by the Special Judge, Kolhapur acquitting the respondent of offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case pertained to an alleged demand of Rs.20,000/- by the respondent, who was the Assistant Registrar, from the complainant Balasaheb Krishna Mali, the Chairman of Ratnappa Kumbhar Nagar Co.Op. Housing Society, for disposing of a complaint filed by one Prakash Yadav. The complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau, and a trap was laid on 17th September 2007. However, the trial court found that there was no verification of the demand, and the trap witnesses, including the shadow panch, did not support the prosecution case. The High Court, after examining the evidence, held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the discussion on the trap day was about the election programme, not the complaint, and the respondent was busy. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) - The prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt as there was no verification of the demand and the trap witnesses did not support the prosecution case. The court held that the acquittal was justified and the appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was justified given the lack of verification of demand and inconsistent evidence.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge, Kolhapur is upheld.
Law Points
- Demand of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Trap witness testimony must be corroborated
- Acquittal upheld if prosecution fails to prove demand
