Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of Devidas Narayanrao Bobde, a Sub Divisional Officer and Rent Controller, who was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 2,000 from a complainant to decide an amendment application favorably. The complainant alleged that the respondent initially demanded Rs. 10,000, later reduced to Rs. 7,000, and that two installments of Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 2,000 were paid earlier. The remaining Rs. 2,000 was to be paid on 28.4.1995, when a trap was laid. The trap party recovered the tainted money from the respondent's shirt pocket, and his fingers tested positive for phenolphthalein. The trial court acquitted the respondent, finding the complainant's testimony unreliable and lacking corroboration. The High Court upheld the acquittal, noting that the complainant's evidence was full of contradictions, the panch witness was not independent, and the delay in lodging the complaint was unexplained. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, and mere recovery was insufficient. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Standard of Proof - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to convict under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Held that the complainant's testimony was unreliable due to material contradictions and lack of corroboration, and the trap witness was not independent, leading to acquittal being upheld (Paras 2-10). B) Evidence Act - Corroboration of Complainant's Testimony - In corruption cases, the testimony of the complainant must be corroborated by independent and trustworthy evidence - Held that the complainant's evidence was not corroborated by the panch witness or other circumstances, and the delay in lodging the complaint raised doubts about its veracity (Paras 5-8). C) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal Against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - The appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable - Held that the trial court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse, hence no interference warranted (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was justified given the evidence of demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe amount.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Wardha, on 18.3.2002 in Special Case No. 6 of 1997 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Acquittal upheld
- demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- complainant's testimony requires corroboration
- delay in lodging complaint raises suspicion
- trap witness not independent
- recovery alone insufficient
