Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra, through the Anti Corruption Bureau, Amravati, appealed against the judgment and order dated 12th January 2006 passed by the Special Judge, Amravati, in Special (ACB) Case No.3/1992, acquitting the respondent Ramrao Marotrao Khawale, a Talathi, of offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case arose from a complaint lodged on 2nd May 1991 by Namdeo Mahadeorao Bopchi, who alleged that the respondent had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.150 for making a mutation entry in revenue records regarding land Survey No.9/2, and later demanded a bribe for issuing a below poverty line certificate. The complainant had purchased the land about four years prior to the complaint. In early April 1991, the complainant visited the respondent's office to pay land revenue and enquired about the mutation, but was told it was not done and more documents were needed. On 28th April 1991, the complainant again visited with documents, but the respondent allegedly refused to accept them without a bribe. A trap was laid on 2nd May 1991, but the trap witnesses turned hostile. The trial court acquitted the respondent, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case. The court held that the demand of bribe, which is a sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, was not established. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Demand of Bribe - Sections 7 and 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The appeal challenged acquittal of a Talathi for demanding and accepting bribe for mutation entry and issuance of BPL certificate - The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt as the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and the trap witnesses turned hostile - Held that acquittal was proper and appeal dismissed (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was justified on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge, Amravati, in Special (ACB) Case No.3/1992 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Demand of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Acquittal upheld when prosecution fails to establish demand
- Section 7 and 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 require proof of demand and acceptance
- Benefit of doubt to accused when evidence is insufficient
