Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal under Section 378(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the acquittal of the respondent, Parvez Framroze Farmarji, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Appeal No. 380 of 1982 dated 15th June, 1994. The respondent was originally convicted by the trial court for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 500 from a complainant. The appellate court set aside the conviction and acquitted the respondent. The State challenged this acquittal. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant's testimony was inconsistent and lacked corroboration. The trap witnesses did not support the prosecution's case. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act could not be invoked without proof of acceptance. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal and giving the benefit of doubt to the accused.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Acquittal Appeal - Section 378(1) Cr.P.C. - State appeal against acquittal - The High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, will not interfere unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable. The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1-3) B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - The essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved by the prosecution. In the absence of credible evidence of demand and acceptance, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot be invoked. (Paras 4-6) C) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 - Presumption - The presumption of fact under Section 114 of the Evidence Act cannot replace the requirement of proof of demand and acceptance in corruption cases. The court must base its decision on legal evidence. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent-accused under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was justified given the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent.
Law Points
- Acquittal appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C.
- Standard of proof in corruption cases
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act arises only after proof of acceptance
- Benefit of doubt to accused
