Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order dated 23.7.1990 passed by the Special Judge, Thane, in Special Case No. 9 of 1985, whereby the respondent-accused was acquitted of offences punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1948. The prosecution case was that the complainant, Yeshwant Gosavi, a tenant leader, had collected electricity bills from tenants and made payments. After a dispute over an excessive bill, the electricity supply was disconnected and later restored. The complainant alleged that the accused, an employee of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, demanded a bribe of Rs. 350/- to restore the connection. A trap was laid, and tainted money was recovered from the accused. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court, in appeal, held that the trial court's findings were based on a proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The evidence of the complainant and panch witness was inconsistent and unreliable. The defence explanation that the amount was a loan was plausible and not rebutted. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 161 IPC, 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1948 - The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded and accepted illegal gratification. Mere recovery of tainted money from the accused is insufficient to establish guilt, especially when the defence offers a plausible explanation. The presumption under Section 4(1) of the Act arises only after the foundational facts of demand and acceptance are proved. In the present case, the evidence of the complainant and panch witness was inconsistent and unreliable, and the defence explanation that the amount was a loan was not rebutted. The trial court's acquittal was based on a reasonable appreciation of evidence and not perverse. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent for offences under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1948 is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent.
Law Points
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Mere recovery of tainted money not sufficient to convict
- Presumption under Section 4(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act arises only when demand and acceptance are proved
- Acquittal cannot be interfered with unless perverse or unreasonable
