Bombay High Court Acquits Talathi in Corruption Case Due to Lack of Demand and Acceptance of Bribe — Conviction under Sections 161, 165 IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 Set Aside. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and the recovery of tainted money from a third party was insufficient to sustain conviction.

Criminal appeal against conviction for corruption

Appellant sought acquittal from conviction under Sections 161, 165 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947

Appellant was convicted by Special Judge, Khamgaon for demanding and accepting bribe for effecting mutation of land

Conviction by Special Judge, Khamgaon on 28.02.1997

Whether the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt? Whether the evidence of complainant and panch witnesses is reliable? Whether the presumption under Section 4(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 can be invoked? Whether the conviction is sustainable in law?

Appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe; the complainant's evidence was unreliable; the panch witness was a stock witness; the tainted money was recovered from a shopkeeper, not from the appellant. Respondent argued that the demand and acceptance were proved; the trap was successful; the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Act applied.

For a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. Mere recovery of tainted money from a third party is insufficient. The presumption under Section 4(1) arises only after the foundational facts of demand and acceptance are established. In this case, the evidence of the complainant and panch witnesses was unreliable and contradictory, and the shopkeeper turned hostile. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove its case, and the appellant is entitled to acquittal.

The appellant, who has been convicted by the learned Special Judge, Khamgaon for the offence punishable under Sections 161, 165 of the Penal Code, 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.100/- on each count, has preferred this appeal. The facts, which led to the prosecution of the appellant, are as under : The appellant is Talathi who was incharge of village Sangwa. One Shivshankar Ingale had approached the appellant on 01.01.1987 for effecting mutation in his name in the record of rights in respect of field Gat No.48 of village Sangwa on the basis of a Gift Deed. The appellant demanded a sum of Rs.250/- to effect such mutation. The complainant Shivshankar paid a sum of Rs.100/- on 01.01.1987 but the appellant stated that he would not effect the mutation unless balance of Rs.150/- was paid to him. On 20th January, 1987 the appellant called complainant's brother Rameshwar and obtained his thumb impression on a register in his house at Shegaon. On 27.01.1987 the complainant again approached the appellant and showed him a cheque of Rs.350.40ps., received by the complainant, presumably to assure the appellant that the appellant would be paid. The appellant allegedly retained the cheque stating that he would return it after receiving the balance. The cheque had been returned to the complainant on 28.01.1987. The complainant then approached Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged complaint. Trap was arranged but could not succeed on 29.01.1987. Again on 30th January, 1987 the complainant approached the appellant when the appellant obtained complainant's signature on a register and told the complainant to come back with balance of Rs.150/- on 31.01.1987. On 03.02.1987 the complainant lodged another complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau and a second trap was arranged. Accordingly on 03.02.1987 after pre-trap formalities the Raiding Party reached Shegaon. The complainant and a panch went to the house of the appellant and learnt that he had gone out. They waited for him till evening and again approached him at his house and found him at his residence. The complainant was taken by the accused to nearby Pramod Kirana Shop. The appellant/ accused told one Awadhut Shegokar, the shop keeper, to receive the amount from the complainant and credit it to his account. Accordingly Awadhut received a sum of Rs.170/- from the complainant. A pre-determined signal was given by the complainant. The raiding party swooped and tainted currency notes were seized, necessary panchnamas were drawn up. The documents which the accused had brought for being delivered to the complainant were also seized. Necessary revenue record was seized from the residence of the accused. A detailed panchnama was drawn up. In course of investigation the police caused statements of witnesses to be recorded, got sketch of the spot drawn up, sent necessary proposal to the Sub-Divisional Officer,

The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge, Khamgaon on 28.02.1997 for offences under Sections 161, 165 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He appealed to the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which heard the appeal and delivered judgment on 16.01.2006.

• Indian Penal Code, 1860: 161, 165
• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947: 5(1)(d), 5(2)