Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra, through the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Buldhana, appealed against the judgment of the Special Judge, Buldhana, acquitting the respondent-accused, Ramlal Shriram Gajbhiye, a Senior Sanitary Inspector, of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution case was that on 15.4.1994, the accused, along with Dr. Natekar, visited the Primary Health Centre, Malkapur Pangra, and took away the daily diary register and malaria eradication register of the complainant, Chandu Harsing Chavan, a Health Assistant. On 2.5.1994, when the complainant went to the Zilla Parishad office, the accused allegedly told him that the daily diary was wrong and that he had drawn false TA bills, and demanded Rs.2,000/- to help him. The complainant reported the matter to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, and a trap was laid on 3.5.1994, during which the accused allegedly accepted the bribe. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the evidence of the trap witness unreliable and lacking corroboration. The High Court, in appeal, upheld the acquittal, noting that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The court observed that the trap witness was an interested witness and his testimony was not corroborated by independent evidence. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not be invoked as the acceptance of bribe was not proved. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Acquittal upheld as prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt - The trap witness was unreliable and his evidence lacked corroboration - The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act does not arise unless acceptance of bribe is proved (Paras 5-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was justified given the alleged demand and acceptance of bribe.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 arises only when acceptance of bribe is proved
- Standard of proof in criminal cases is beyond reasonable doubt
- Evidence of trap witness requires corroboration
- Demand and acceptance are essential ingredients for offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
