Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, in Special Case No.2/88, acquitting the respondent-accused Ashok Shripad Savgave of offences under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was a senior clerk (Darkhast Sirastedar) in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara. The complainant, Vimal Shilwant, had filed a miscellaneous civil application for a succession certificate after her husband's death in 1980, which was opposed by one Surekha Adsule. The complainant's applications for adjournment to issue witness summons were rejected on 25.3.88 and 6.4.88, and the matter was posted for hearing on 14.6.88. The complainant alleged that she met the accused and he demanded Rs.300 to get the matter adjourned. She claimed she again visited on 10.6.88 and the accused reiterated the demand. A trap was laid on 14.6.88, and the accused was caught accepting the bribe. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the trap witness (panch) unreliable and the prosecution evidence insufficient. The High Court, on appeal, examined the evidence and found that the panch witness had turned hostile and the complainant's testimony was not corroborated. The court held that the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act could not be invoked as acceptance of gratification was not proved. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) read with Section 161 IPC - The prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt as the trap witness was unreliable and there was no independent corroboration - Held that the trial court's acquittal was proper and the appeal was dismissed (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused for offences under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 IPC was justified given the evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Special Case No.2/88 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 4(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1947 arises only when acceptance of gratification is proved
- Standard of proof in criminal cases
- Credibility of trap witnesses
- Necessity of corroboration in trap cases
