Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order dated 26-04-2006 passed by the Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad, District Yavatmal in Special Case No. 2/2002, whereby the respondents were acquitted of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondents, Gajanan Shankarrao Phalke (Senior Clerk) and Ramesh Pundlikrao Thakre (Junior Clerk), were employed in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Pusad. The complainant, Virendra Krushnarao Mandavkar, alleged that respondent no. 1 demanded Rs. 500/- for issuing a succession certificate, which was already directed by the court, and that respondent no. 2 abetted the offence by accepting the tainted currency notes. The demand was allegedly made four-five days prior to 26-02-2001, and the bribe was paid on 26-02-2001 at the court premises. The trial court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the defence of respondent no. 1 that the amount was a handloan was probabilised. The High Court heard the appeal and examined the record. The court noted that the complainant's evidence was unreliable due to contradictions and improvements, and the defence of handloan was plausible. The court held that the trial court's findings were not perverse and that the appeal lacked merit. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - Prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt - Complainant's evidence was unreliable due to contradictions and improvements - Defence of handloan was plausible - Acquittal upheld (Paras 1-10).
B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Abetment - Section 12 - Respondent no. 2 charged with abetment - No independent evidence of abetment - Acquittal upheld (Paras 1-10).
C) Criminal Appeal - Appeal against Acquittal - Scope of interference - High Court cannot reverse acquittal unless findings are perverse or unreasonable - Trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible - Appeal dismissed (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that respondent no. 1 demanded and accepted bribe and respondent no. 2 abetted the offence, and whether the trial court's acquittal was perverse.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Acquittal of respondents upheld.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 arises only when demand and acceptance are proved
- Defence of handloan must be probable
- Acquittal cannot be interfered with unless perverse
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (05) 56
Criminal Appeal No. 366 of 2006
Ms. N. P. Mehta, A.P.P. for the State/appellant; None for the respondents
Gajanan Shankarrao Phalke and Ramesh Pundlikrao Thakre
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against acquittal in corruption case
Remedy Sought
State sought reversal of acquittal and conviction of respondents
Filing Reason
State aggrieved by acquittal of respondents for offences under Prevention of Corruption Act
Previous Decisions
Trial court acquitted respondents in Special Case No. 2/2002 on 26-04-2006
Issues
Whether the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt?
Whether the trial court's acquittal was perverse and liable to be set aside?
Submissions/Arguments
Learned APP submitted that trial court gave undue importance to events at ACB office and scoring of dates in complaint, and it was improbable for court officials to give handloan to litigant.
Respondents did not appear to contest the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The defence of handloan was plausible and the trial court's findings were not perverse. An appeal against acquittal cannot be allowed unless the findings are unreasonable or perverse.
Judgment Excerpts
This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 26-4-2006 delivered in Special Case No. 2/2002 by Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad, District Yavatmal thereby acquitting respondent no. 1 of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(i)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and respondent no. 2 of the offences punishable under Sections 7 read with Section 12 as well as Section 13(i)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
On merits of the case, learned Special Judge found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents and that the defence of respondent no. 1 that what was actually received by him, that is, amount of Rs. 500/- was the money payable to him by the complainant on account of the complainant having taken the said amount from the respondent no. 1 as handloan was probabalized and thus, acquitted both the respondents.
Procedural History
The trial court (Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad) acquitted the respondents on 26-04-2006 in Special Case No. 2/2002. The State appealed to the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) on 19-05-2017, which dismissed the appeal.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 7, 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2)
