Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order dated 23/3/1990 passed by the Special Judge, Sangli in Special Case No.8 of 1986, whereby the respondent-accused, Tajuddin Gulpan Fakir, a Head Constable at Kavathe Mahankal Police Station, was acquitted of offences punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The prosecution case was that the accused demanded Rs.200 from the complainant Shivaji Akaram Wavare for registering a complaint and making an inquiry against certain persons. A trap was laid by the Anti Corruption Bureau, and the accused was apprehended after accepting the amount. The prosecution examined six witnesses. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence, acquitted the accused. The High Court, hearing the appeal, noted that the trial court had given cogent reasons for acquittal, including that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe. The High Court observed that the findings of the trial court were not perverse and that the appeal lacked merit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 161 IPC, 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - The prosecution failed to prove that the accused demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.200 from the complainant for registering a complaint. The trial court acquitted the accused, and the High Court found no perversity in the findings, dismissing the State's appeal. Held that the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Act does not arise unless demand and acceptance are proved (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused for offences under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was justified on the basis of the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the acquittal of the accused.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 4(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1947 arises only when demand and acceptance are proved
- Burden of proof on prosecution to prove demand beyond reasonable doubt
- Acquittal cannot be reversed unless perverse or unreasonable
