Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order dated 07.12.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, Warora in Special (ACB) Case No. 11/2008, whereby the respondent Narayan S/o Shivram Mataghare was acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution case was that the complainant Ashok Kathane intended to execute a gift deed in favour of his son and applied for mutation entry on 20.02.2003. The respondent, working as Head Quarter Assistant in the Office of Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Chimur, allegedly demanded Rs.2000/- as illegal gratification for the mutation. The complainant could not pay and requested reduction to Rs.200/-, but the respondent persisted. On 09.07.2003, the complainant agreed to pay and lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) on 21.07.2003. A trap was laid, and the respondent allegedly accepted the bribe amount of Rs.2000/-. The tainted notes were recovered from his shirt pocket, and the sodium carbonate test turned violet. The trial court acquitted the respondent primarily on the ground that the sanction for prosecution was not validly obtained and that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the complainant's testimony was inconsistent with the panch witnesses regarding the demand. The panch witness turned hostile, and the complainant's version was not corroborated. The court held that the recovery of tainted money alone, without proof of demand, is insufficient to convict under the PC Act. Additionally, the prosecution did not produce the original sanction order, and the sanctioning authority was not examined, rendering the trial defective. The High Court concluded that the trial court's findings were plausible and not perverse, and therefore, no interference was warranted. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 - Mandatory Requirement - The prosecution failed to produce valid sanction order for prosecuting the respondent, a public servant, which is a prerequisite under Section 19 of the PC Act. The absence of sanction vitiates the trial. (Paras 2-5) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the evidence of the complainant and panch witnesses was inconsistent and unreliable, failing to establish the demand. The recovery of tainted money alone is insufficient to prove acceptance without proof of demand. (Paras 6-10) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal Against Acquittal - Section 378 - Scope of Interference - The High Court's interference with an acquittal is limited unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable. The trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible, and no ground for reversal was made out. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was justified on the grounds of lack of sanction and failure to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Law Points
- Sanction under Section 19 of PC Act is mandatory
- Demand and acceptance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Acquittal can be upheld if prosecution fails to prove demand
- Inconsistencies in witness testimony weaken prosecution case
