Case Note & Summary
The applicants, Rajendra Shinde and Sanjay Bramhankar, were public servants working as Chief Manager (Engineering) and Manager (Engineering) respectively in the Maharashtra State Agro Industries Development Corporation (MAIDC), a State Government Undertaking. They filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 25 of 2017 registered with the Anti Corruption Bureau, Worli, Mumbai on 29th July 2017 under Sections 7, 8 read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR was lodged by Ravish Dwarkadas Maru, who was in the business of manufacturing HDPE pipes and supplied them to various Zilla Parishads through MAIDC. According to the first informant, an amount of Rs.2,20,00,000 was due from MAIDC payable to him. Out of this, MAIDC released Rs.1,30,00,000, and for that release, the applicants along with a private person had accepted Rs.50,000 as bribe. The remaining Rs.90,00,000 was still due, and the first informant alleged that the applicants demanded a bribe of Rs.1,50,000 for releasing that amount. However, the first informant approached the Anti Corruption Bureau, and a trap was laid. The applicants did not accept the bribe amount during the trap. The key legal issue was whether a mere demand without acceptance can constitute an offence under the PC Act. The court analyzed the provisions of Sections 7, 8, and 13(2) of the PC Act and held that for an offence under these sections, both demand and acceptance are essential ingredients. Since there was no acceptance of the bribe amount, the FIR was quashed. The court relied on the principle that demand without acceptance does not make out an offence under the PC Act.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption - Demand Without Acceptance - Sections 7, 8, 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The court considered whether a mere demand of bribe without actual acceptance amounts to an offence under the PC Act - Held that for offences under Sections 7, 8, and 13(2), both demand and acceptance are essential ingredients; mere demand without acceptance does not constitute an offence - The FIR was quashed as there was no acceptance of bribe amount (Paras 1, 10-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether demand without acceptance can constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Final Decision
The court allowed the application and quashed the FIR No. 25 of 2017 registered with Anti Corruption Bureau, Worli, Mumbai
Law Points
- Demand without acceptance is not an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- Sections 7
- 8
- and 13(2) require both demand and acceptance of bribe
