Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Bharati Dangre, J.
Sunil Hirasingh Rathod - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1137 of 2018 with Criminal Appeal No. 1039 of 2018 with Criminal Appeal No.1102 of 2018 with Criminal Appeal No.1114 of 2018
Decided On : 25-08-2021
In a case involving the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish the demand for bribe by public servants and the acceptance of the bribe amount. The court found inconsistencies and omissions in the prosecution's case and held that the testimony of the complainant and panch witnesses was not corroborated. The court also found that the transcript of the recorded conversation was not reliable and did not establish the demand or acceptance of the bribe. The court acquitted all five appellants, including the public servants and private individuals, of the charges framed against them.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a construction business owner, alleged that two public servants, an Assistant Engineer and a Sub-Engineer, demanded a bribe of Rs. 15 lakhs and Rs. 10 lakhs, respectively, for issuing an Intimation of Disapproval (IOD) for a redevelopment project. The complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), which laid a trap and caught the public servants accepting the bribe amount. The public servants and three private individuals, including a liaison officer and an architect, were charged with various offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the demand for bribe by the public servants. The court found inconsistencies and omissions in the prosecution's case and held that the testimony of the complainant and panch witnesses was not corroborated. The court also found that the transcript of the recorded conversation was not reliable and did not establish the demand or acceptance of the bribe.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution established the demand for bribe by the public servants? 2. Whether the prosecution established the acceptance of the bribe amount by the public servants? 3. Whether the transcript of the recorded conversation was reliable and established the demand or acceptance of the bribe?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the demand for bribe by the public servants. The court found inconsistencies and omissions in the prosecution's case and held that the testimony of the complainant and panch witnesses was not corroborated. 2. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the acceptance of the bribe amount by the public servants. The court found that the transcript of the recorded conversation was not reliable and did not establish the demand or acceptance of the bribe. 3. The court held that the transcript of the recorded conversation was not reliable and did not establish the demand or acceptance of the bribe.
Final Decision: The court acquitted all five appellants, including the public servants and private individuals, of the charges framed against them.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court acquitted all five appellants, including public servants and private individuals, of the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, due to insufficient proof of demand and acceptance of bribe (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredient of demand for bribe by the public servants, as the witnesses' testimonies were inconsistent and uncorroborated, and the recorded conversations were not reliable or conclusive (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The transcripts of recorded conversations lacked clarity and were not properly authenticated, with technical lapses such as missing serial numbers and incomplete certification, which undermined their evidentiary value (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Voice analysis reports did not conclusively match the voices of the accused with those in the recorded conversations, further weakening the prosecution’s case (!) (!) .
The evidence did not demonstrate that the accused public servants demanded or accepted any bribe directly; possession of tainted money alone was insufficient to prove an offence without clear demand or acceptance (!) (!) (!) .
The defense successfully argued that the sequence of events and documentary evidence showed that the IOD was prepared and signed prior to the alleged demand, indicating no link between the demand and the issuance of the IOD (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court noted material inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses regarding the demand, acceptance, and the sequence of events, which created reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s version (!) (!) (!) .
The prosecution failed to prove that the accused persons used illegal means or abused their official position to obtain any valuable thing, as required to establish offences under the relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that mere recovery of tainted money does not establish guilt unless demand and acceptance are proven, which was lacking in this case (!) (!) .
The appellate court found the impugned judgment to be perverse and not based on the evidence on record, leading to the conclusion that the appellants must be acquitted (!) (!) .
The appeals were allowed, and the conviction and sentences were set aside, resulting in the acquittal of all accused persons (!) (!) .
The court raised concerns about procedural irregularities, such as the timing of arrests and the admissibility of digital evidence, questioning the validity of the investigation process (!) (!) .
Overall, the case underscores the importance of clear, corroborated evidence of demand and acceptance in proving offences related to corruption, and highlights the necessity of reliable technical evidence for convictions under anti-corruption laws (!) (!) (!) .
These points collectively reflect the court’s reasoning in acquitting the accused due to the failure of the prosecution to meet the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
JUDGMENT
BHARATI DANGRE, J. - Through the above mentioned four Appeals, five accused persons assail the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in Special Case No. 60 of 2015 by the Special Judge, Mumbai on 18th August 2018 and seek their acquittal, on reversing the impugned judgment holding them guilty of the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Appeal No. 1039 of 2018 is filed by two appellants, Vilas Ganpati Khillari, Assistant Engineer and Balaji Gurupadabba Birajdar, Sub-Engineer working in MCGM, F/North Zone, E Ward, Byculla. In Appeal No. 1137 of 2018, the applicant is one Sunil Rathod, Executive Engineer, MCGM, F/North Zone, E Ward, Byculla, Mumbai. Appeal No.1102 of 2018 is instituted by Satish B. Palav working as Liaison Officer through Architect engaged by the complainant and fourth Appeal vide No.1114 of 2018 is filed by Narayan J. Patil, a private person. In view of the order passed on 22th October 2018 in Criminal Application No.1611 of 2018, in Appeal No.1137/2018, the hearing of the Appeal was expedited. The office made the Appeal ready for final hearing in the month of April 2021 along with the connected Appeals. By consent of all the parties, the Appeals were taken up for hearing.
2. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Amit Desai represent the appellant Sunil Rathod, Advocate Niranjan Mundargi represent the appellants Khillari and Birajdar and he also represent the appellant Narayan Patil. Advocate Girish Kulkarni a/w Advocate Kartik Garg represent the appellant Mr.Palav. In all the Appeals, State is represented by the learned APP Mr.Agarkar.
3. The appellants are described by their nomenclature during the trial, in view of the distinct appeals which they have filed.
Before proceeding to the challenge to the impugned judgment, the prosecution case can be briefly summarized as under :-
4. In the month of October 2014, the Accused no.1 was serving on the post of Assistant Engineer, MCGM, FNorth Zone, E-Ward, Byculla, Mumbai, while the Appellant No.2 was serving as Sub-Engineer in the very same office in which the Appellant Sunil Rathod was serving as Executive Engineer. The accused nos.1 to 3 were public servants within the meaning of Section 2(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, whereas the appellant no.4 is a private person, an Architect by profession and engaged in liasoning work between various persons and MCGM Officials. Accused no.5 was working as helper with one of the Architects in Mumbai.
The complainant (PW 1) and his partner PW 2 are into construction business being carried out in the name and style as "Tirupati Developers ". The business is run as a partnership firm, which is registered, having its office at Dombivali and the prosecution case revolve around a development work being undertaken by the said firm in respect of one Date Bhavan located at 167-B, City Survey No.144-B, 10, Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Mumbai. An application was moved for permission for redevelopment and construction work from the Government of Maharashtra. After obtaining the said permission, applications were moved with the MCGM for the project to be undertaken. The case of the prosecution is that the Accused nos.1 to 3 were handling the work of grant of Intimation Of Disapproval (IOD) for the complainant 's firm and that the accused no.1 and 2 demanded sum of Rs.15 lakhs and Rs.10 lakhs respectively from the complainant on 10th October 2014 for issuance of IOD for their project and since the complainant had no intention to pay the bribe amount as demanded, he lodged a complaint with the office of Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB).
For the purpose of verification of the demand, the panch witnesses were directed to accompany the complainant and accordingly, they visited the office of the accused persons on 10/10/2014, 16/10/2014, 17/10/214 and 18/10/2014 and the prosecution claim that the demand of bribe amount by the accused nos.1 and 2, was verified. The conversation between the complainant and the acc
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
