Case Note & Summary
The case involves two criminal revision applications arising from an order of the Special Judge, Bhandara, discharging the accused Kunda Motiramji Bodalkar in Special Criminal Case No. 7/2015 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complainant Archana Dhok, a teacher, alleged that the accused, who was the Head Mistress, demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 10,000 to release her salary which had been withheld. The Anti Corruption Bureau laid a trap and caught the accused accepting the bribe. The Special Judge discharged the accused primarily on the ground that no sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act was obtained, and that the evidence was insufficient. The complainant and the State filed revisions. The High Court held that the Special Judge erred in discharging the accused. It noted that the accused had ceased to be a public servant by the time of taking cognizance, so no sanction was required. Moreover, there was prima facie evidence of demand and acceptance, which is sufficient to frame charges. The court set aside the discharge order and directed the Special Judge to proceed with the trial.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Discharge - Section 227 CrPC - Standard of Proof - The court must consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, not whether the evidence is sufficient for conviction. At the stage of framing charge, only a prima facie case is required. (Paras 10-12)
B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 - Applicability - Sanction under Section 19 is required only when the accused is a public servant at the time of taking cognizance. If the accused has ceased to be a public servant, no sanction is necessary. (Paras 13-15)
C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) - Prima Facie Case - Where there is direct evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused, a prima facie case is made out for framing charges. The court cannot discharge the accused by weighing evidence at the stage of Section 227 CrPC. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Special Judge was justified in discharging the accused under Section 227 of CrPC on the ground of lack of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and whether the complainant's revision against such discharge is maintainable.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed both revision applications, set aside the order of discharge dated 4/12/2017 passed by the Special Judge, Bhandara, and directed the Special Judge to proceed with the trial in Special Criminal Case No. 7/2015 in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is not required at the stage of discharge if the accused is not a public servant at the time of taking cognizance
- Prima facie evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe is sufficient to frame charges
- Discharge order can be set aside if based on erroneous appreciation of evidence
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (12) 158
Criminal Revision Application No. 27 of 2018 and Criminal Revision Application No. 52 of 2018
Shri K. B. Zinzarde for applicant in Revn 27/2018, Shri H. R. Dhumale, Additional Public Prosecutor for State/appellant in Revn 52/2018 and for respondent no. 1 in Revn 27/2018, Shri R. S. Parsodkar for respondent no. 2 in Revn 27/2018, Shri V. K. Paliwal for respondent in Revn 52/2018
Smt. Archana Sahebrao Dhok (in Revn 27/2018) and The State of Maharashtra (in Revn 52/2018)
Ku. Kunda Motiramji Bodalkar @ Kunda Arjun Godbole and The State of Maharashtra (in Revn 27/2018) and Ku. Kunda Motiramji Bodalkar @ Kunda Arjun Godbole (in Revn 52/2018)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision applications against order of discharge in a corruption case under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Remedy Sought
Setting aside of the discharge order and direction to frame charges against the accused.
Filing Reason
The Special Judge discharged the accused on the ground of lack of sanction under Section 19 of PC Act and insufficient evidence.
Previous Decisions
Special Judge, Bhandara discharged the accused in Special Criminal Case No. 7/2015 on 4/12/2017.
Issues
Whether the Special Judge was justified in discharging the accused under Section 227 of CrPC on the ground of lack of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
Whether the complainant's revision against the discharge order is maintainable?
Submissions/Arguments
Learned counsel for the complainant and the State argued that the Special Judge erred in discharging the accused as there was prima facie evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe, and sanction was not required as the accused had ceased to be a public servant.
Learned counsel for the accused argued that the discharge was proper as no sanction was obtained and the evidence was insufficient to frame charges.
Ratio Decidendi
At the stage of framing charge under Section 227 CrPC, the court is only required to see whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. A prima facie case is made out if there is direct evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe. Sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act is not required if the accused is not a public servant at the time of taking cognizance.
Judgment Excerpts
At the stage of framing charge, the court is only required to see whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
If the accused has ceased to be a public servant, no sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act is necessary.
There is direct evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused, which makes out a prima facie case.
Procedural History
The complainant lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau, Bhandara, alleging demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the case was registered as Special Criminal Case No. 7/2015 before the Special Judge, Bhandara. The accused filed an application for discharge, which was allowed by the Special Judge on 4/12/2017. The complainant filed Criminal Revision Application No. 27/2018 and the State filed Criminal Revision Application No. 52/2018 against the discharge order. Both revisions were heard together and disposed of by this judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 7, 13(1)(d), 19
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 227
