Bombay High Court
State of Maharashtra
Versus
Ramdas Shankar Kurlakar
Decided On:

Headnote:Sections 161, 109 and 265-A - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2)-Acceptance of illegal gratification-Requisites for proof of offence-Tacit agreement to do an act in consideration of bribe must be proved by circumstantial evidence-Mere acceptance of bribe even through trap not sufficient to sustain prosecution-It must have some nexus with earlier agreement between parties-Charge against main accused not proved-Charge against abettor cannot be said to be proved. PWs 1 and 2 never had a case that respondent No. 2 inclemently asserting his authority or to hold out to do some help to the PWs 1 and 2 in his official capacity and as consideration whereof he was demanding the amount of Rs. 500/-. Unless the tacit agreement as envisaged in Section 161 of the IPC and Section 5(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 to do an act in consideration of the bribe, has been proved by circumstantial evidence, mere acceptance of an amount, even through trap, will not be sufficient to sustain a prosecution. Bribe money found out in the possession of the accused during the trap must have some nexus with the earlier agreement between the parties even tacitly or by any necessary implications or the demand by the accused. It has come out in evidence of accused No.1 that the accused No, 2 went along with PW 1 in the car to receive the amount. Here charge against the accused is only as an abettor. In that circumstance, if charge against main accused is not proved, charge against the abettor cannot be said to be proved.

       For Citation : 1999 (101) 1 Bom LR 223 at pp. 237, 238