Case Note & Summary
The respondent, Sudam Bhausaheb Bhalekar, was a police constable recruited on 1.7.1970 and promoted to head constable in 1982. In May 1993, he was attached to Khadki Police Station. On 28.5.1993, a complaint was made by Ramesh Babanrao Ranaware that the respondent was demanding a bribe for returning his tempo and its documents which had met with an accident. Based on the complaint, the Anti Corruption Department laid a trap and the respondent was caught accepting illegal gratification. He was tried before the Special Court, Pune for offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, vide judgment and order dated 19.10.2001, convicted him. The respondent appealed to the Sessions Court, which acquitted him on 31.1.2003. The State of Maharashtra and police officers filed a writ petition challenging the acquittal. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the appellate court had erred in reversing the conviction. The High Court held that the demand and acceptance of bribe were proved by the complainant and trap witnesses, and the presumption under Section 20 of the Act applied. The appellate court's reasoning was based on minor discrepancies and was perverse. The High Court set aside the acquittal and restored the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The respondent, a police constable, was convicted by the Special Judge for demanding and accepting a bribe for returning a tempo and its documents. The appellate court acquitted him on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance. The High Court set aside the acquittal, holding that the evidence of the complainant and trap witnesses, along with the presumption under Section 20, sufficiently proved the offence. The appellate court's reasoning was based on minor discrepancies and was perverse. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - The High Court, in a writ petition against acquittal, can interfere if the findings of the appellate court are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellate court's judgment was set aside as it ignored material evidence and applied an incorrect standard of proof. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the conviction of the respondent for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgment of the appellate court dated 31.1.2003, and restored the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge on 19.10.2001.
Law Points
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- Sections 7
- 13(1)(d) read with 13(2)
- demand and acceptance of bribe
- presumption under Section 20
- standard of proof in corruption cases
- appellate court's power to reverse conviction
