Back
K. R. SHRIRAM
State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Bhagwan Pandurang Patil, Section Engineer, Construction Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated 28th July 2004 passed by Learned Special Judge, (Anti corruption) Thane, acquitting respondent of the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Complainant P.W.-1 had formed a Co-operative Society and Cooperative society was undertaking contracts from Public Works Department for various works in Wada Division. In May 2001, the works which were awarded to the society had been completed and there were bills pending. After 6 months, when the defect liability period was over P.W.-1 approached accused on 26th December 2001 at about 10.00 a.m for preparing and clearing his bills and forward the same to the concerned authority for payment. Accused at that time, stated that it will be done provided P.W.-1 gave him Rs.35,000/- which was a bribe. When P.W.-1 told accused that he is in financial difficulty, accused agreed to receive the amount in installments. P.W.-1 was instructed to bring Rs.10,000/- between 11.00 a.m to 2.00 p.m. on 28th December 2001 with an assurance that the bills will be signed and sent for sanction provided the amount of Rs.10,0
Point of Law : Mere recovery from AO2 would not entail prosecution to seek drawl of presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act and shift burden on to appellant.
Point of Law : When amount was recovered from the table drawer and once demand is not proved, which is sine qua non proof, an offence under Section 7 of the Act is not proved, the prosecution fails.
The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of a bribe; mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction without evidence of demand.
The prosecution must prove both the demand for a bribe and the existence of an official favor pending; mere recovery of tainted currency is insufficient for conviction.
The court affirmed that a valid sanction and credible evidence of demand and acceptance of bribes are essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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
