Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of the respondent, Prabhakar Uddarwar, who was a Nazul Surveyor in the office of Taluka Inspector of Land Records at Chandrapur. He was prosecuted for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 2,500 from the complainant, Sumedh Shinde, for preparing a valuation report of a Nazul land. The complainant alleged that the accused demanded the amount for expediting the report and threatened to delay it otherwise. A trap was laid on 12-10-1998, and the accused was caught accepting the bribe. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution evidence unreliable. The High Court upheld the acquittal, noting that the trap witness (PW2) turned hostile and his evidence was not credible. The complainant's testimony lacked corroboration, and the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 does not arise unless acceptance is proved. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - Presumption under Section 20 - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 is rebuttable and arises only after acceptance is proved. In this case, the trap witness (PW2) was declared hostile and his evidence was unreliable. The complainant's testimony was not corroborated by independent evidence. The trial court's acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence and was not perverse. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Appeal - Appeal Against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal can interfere only if the findings of the trial court are perverse or unreasonable. If two views are possible, the view favoring the accused should be adopted. The trial court's acquittal was based on plausible reasoning and did not warrant interference. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is rebuttable
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Evidence of trap witness requires corroboration
- Acquittal can be reversed only if perverse or unreasonable
