Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal against the acquittal of Rajendra Dadaji Supare, a Police Head Constable, who was charged under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that on 29-08-1993, the accused demanded Rs. 7000 (later reduced to Rs. 3000) from complainant Baliram Gunaji Jadhav to facilitate the bail of his nephew Dau, who was in custody for an offence under Section 354 IPC. The complainant was unable to pay, and Dau was not released. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the complainant's testimony unreliable and lacking corroboration. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the complainant's version was inconsistent and unsupported by independent witnesses. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not be invoked as acceptance was not proved. The High Court concluded that the trial court's findings were not perverse or unreasonable, and thus upheld the acquittal, dismissing the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Acquittal upheld as prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt - Complainant's testimony was unreliable and not corroborated by independent witnesses - Held that the trial court's findings were not perverse and did not warrant interference (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Acquittal of the accused upheld.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 arises only when acceptance of bribe is proved
- Standard of proof in criminal cases is beyond reasonable doubt
- Acquittal can be set aside only if findings are perverse or unreasonable
