Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2003 passed by the Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, in Special Case No.4/2000, acquitting the respondent Shivpal Pralhadrao Sharma of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent was serving as an Electrical Inspector with the Municipal Council, Akola, in 1994-95. The complainant, Shriram Shegokar, had completed electrical work for the Municipal Council worth Rs.40,000/- under a contract, but the payment was not made. The respondent was responsible for preparing the order sheet recommending payment. The complainant alleged that the respondent demanded 10% of the bill amount (Rs.4,000/-) as illegal gratification to clear the bill. On 10.4.1997 and 15.4.1997, the respondent allegedly told the complainant that unless he paid the bribe, the bill would not be cleared. The complainant lodged a report with the Anti Corruption Bureau on 23.4.1997, and a trap was laid. The respondent was caught accepting the bribe amount. The trial court acquitted the respondent, holding that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence. The trap witness (PW-2) was declared hostile and did not support the prosecution. The other witnesses, including the complainant (PW-1) and the panch witness (PW-3), gave contradictory statements. The High Court held that the recovery of tainted currency notes alone, without proof of demand and acceptance, is insufficient to convict. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act arises only after acceptance is proved. The court found that the trial court's view was a possible view and not perverse. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(2), 20 - Presumption - The prosecution must first prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt before the presumption under Section 20 can be invoked. In this case, the trap witness (PW-2) was declared hostile and his evidence was unreliable. The other witnesses did not corroborate the demand. The recovery of tainted currency notes alone, without proof of demand and acceptance, is insufficient to convict. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Act - Hostile Witness - Credibility - Section 154 - When a trap witness turns hostile and his testimony is not corroborated by independent evidence, the court cannot rely on his evidence to convict the accused. The prosecution's case must stand on its own legs. (Paras 5-8) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal Against Acquittal - Scope - Section 378 - In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere unless the findings of the trial court are perverse or unreasonable. The High Court will not re-appreciate evidence if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- for clearing the complainant's bill, and whether the acquittal by the Special Judge was perverse.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court's view was a possible view.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 arises only when acceptance of gratification is proved
- Burden of proof on prosecution to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt
- Evidence of trap witnesses must be corroborated by independent evidence
- Mere recovery of tainted currency notes does not establish demand or acceptance
