Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra, through the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Chandrapur, filed an appeal 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 regarding his shop property and applied for mutation 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 entry. The complainant could not pay and requested reduction to Rs.200/-, but the respondent persisted. On 09.07.2003, the complainant again visited the office and the demand was repeated, to which the complainant agreed. However, the complainant approached the ACB, Chandrapur, and an oral complaint was reduced to writing on 21.07.2003. A trap was laid, and the respondent allegedly accepted the bribe amount, which was recovered from his shirt pocket. The trial court acquitted the respondent, finding the complainant's testimony unreliable and lacking corroboration. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the trial court's appreciation of evidence was not perverse. The complainant's conduct was suspicious, and the panch witnesses did not fully support the prosecution. The demand and acceptance were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act was rebutted. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Acquittal - Appeal against acquittal - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) PC Act - The State appealed against acquittal of a public servant for demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.2000/- for mutation entry - The trial court acquitted on grounds of unreliable complainant and lack of corroboration - The High Court upheld acquittal, finding no perversity in trial court's appreciation of evidence - Held that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption under Section 20 was rebutted (Paras 2-10).
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 proper and legal.
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
- Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act is rebuttable
- Demand and acceptance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Complainant's testimony must be corroborated in trap cases
- Acquittal can be upheld if prosecution fails to prove demand and acceptance
