Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge at Buldana on 28.2.2003 in Special Anti Corruption Case No.1 of 1997, whereby the respondent Sakharam Banduji Jadhav, a Police Head Constable, was acquitted of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case arose from an allegation that on 8.12.1995 and 12.12.1995, the respondent demanded and obtained a bribe of Rs.400 from the complainant Sudhakar Laxman Hivale (PW3) for not taking action against him on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Rukhminibai Baliram More. The prosecution examined seven witnesses, including the sanctioning authority (PW1), the complainant (PW3), and other witnesses. The trial court acquitted the respondent, finding the prosecution evidence insufficient to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. In the appeal, the High Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms T.H. Udeshi for the appellant and learned counsel Shri A.A. Gupta for the respondent. The court examined the record and proceedings, including the notes of evidence. The High Court upheld the acquittal, noting that the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and lacked corroboration from independent witnesses. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act does not arise unless demand and acceptance are first proved, and the prosecution failed to discharge that initial burden. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Acquittal upheld where prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt - The complainant's testimony was inconsistent and not corroborated by independent witnesses - Held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act does not arise unless demand and acceptance are first proved (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge at Buldana dated 28.2.2003 in Special Anti Corruption Case No.1 of 1997 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 arises only when demand and acceptance are proved
- Standard of proof in criminal appeal against acquittal
- Appreciation of evidence in corruption cases
