The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable evidence and the need to prove the demand for bribe before establishing culpability under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Special Judge – Anti Corruption Bureau [“ACB”] – Sindhudurg – Oros acquitted the Respondent-Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [“PC Act”] on 24th August, 2011.

2. De facto Complainant is the owner of the agricultural land and Respondent-Accused was the Talathi at village : Sateli Bhedashi, Taluka : Dodamarg, District : Sindhudurg. Respondent demanded bribe for issuing 7/12 extract in the name of de facto Complainant. The amount of bribe was paid in part and trap was successful while paying other part.

3. After trial, the Respondent was acquitted mainly for the following grounds :-

(a) The de facto Complainant – PW No.1 has not supported the case of the Prosecution fully.

(b) There is variance in testimonies of the de facto Complainant – PW No.1 on one hand and trap panch – PW No.2 on the other hand on material particulars.

(c) The digital evidence in the form of recording conversation was not analyzed by the forensic expert.

4. This judgment of acquittal is challenged by the State. So, the issues involved in this Appeal are :-

(a) Whether the trial Court ought to have accepted other evidence when the de facto Complainant has not supported fully ?

(b) Whether the corroborative evidence ought to have accepted by the trial Court ?

(c) Considering the limited scope of Appeal, whether judgment of acquittal can be interfered on the grounds agitated in this Appeal.

5. On this background, I have heard learned APP Shri.Y.Y.Dabke – for the Appellant-State and learned Senior Advocate Shri. A.S. Khandeparkar for the Respondent-Accused.

About trial Court judgment

6. After hearing the submissions and going through the record, it reveals that the trial Court has understood that the de facto Complainant has not supported the Prosecution case in toto. Though he deposed about the initial demand prior to lodging of the complaint, he has not given the details. While giving description about the events that transpired after approaching the Anti Corruption Bureau, he has not stated many facts. At one stage, even the trial Court has observed that the de facto Complainant has resiled from his complaint. This is not the exceptional case wherein de facto Complainant has partly resiled from his complaint. On this background, an option which was left open to the trial Court is to scan the other evidence available. This is what stated by the Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Neeraj Dutta V/s. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 280.

About appeal

7. It is true that the said observations were not in existence when the impugned judgment is delivered. However, when this Court is dealing with an Appeal, an endeavour is to ascertain whether other corroborating evidence is sufficient to conclude about the guilt of the Accused. Unfortunately, when such exercise is carried out, this Court finds that other evidence is not worthy of credence. Hence, this Court is not having any alternative but to confirm the judgment of acquittal and to dismiss the Appeal. I will give reasons for the said decision.

Submissions

8. Learned Senior Advocate Shri.Khandeparkar relied upon the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of P. Satyanarayan Murthy V/s. The Dist. Inspector of Police and Ors., AIR 2015 SC 3549. Therein, the complainant has expired prior to giving evidence. The trial Court convicted the Accused for both the offences on the basis of evidence available. The conviction under Section 7 was set aside by the High Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the conviction for the offence under Section 13(2) of PC Act. It is true that the Constitution Bench in case of Neeraj Dutta (supra) has dealt with divergent views expressed on the point of adequacy of evidence in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act. There may be a contingency wherein the de facto complainant has expired or not available or has not supporte