Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
S.M. Modak, J.
State of Maharashtra - Appellant
Versus
Rajasaheb Yashwant Rane - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 858 of 2012
Decided On : 04-05-2023
ACQUITTAL - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - The court discussed the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, particularly Sections 7 and 13, which address the offenses of bribery and corruption. The court emphasized the necessity of reliable evidence, particularly the need for corroboration when the de facto complainant does not fully support the prosecution's case. The court interpreted the requirement for a clear demand for illegal gratification as a precursor to establishing culpability, ultimately leading to the conclusion that the evidence presented was insufficient to uphold the conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The Respondent-Accused, a Talathi, was accused of demanding a bribe from the de facto Complainant for issuing a 7/12 extract related to agricultural land. The Complainant alleged multiple demands for bribes, which were partially paid, leading to a successful trap by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. However, during the trial, the Complainant's testimony was inconsistent and he resiled from key statements made in his complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court acquitted the Respondent-Accused, finding that the de facto Complainant did not fully support the prosecution's case, and there were significant inconsistencies in the testimonies. The court also noted the lack of forensic analysis of digital evidence and the absence of corroborative evidence to substantiate the claims of bribery.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court should have accepted other evidence despite the de facto Complainant not fully supporting the prosecution. 2. Whether corroborative evidence should have been accepted. 3. Whether the judgment of acquittal could be interfered with based on the grounds raised in the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the evidence of demand for illegal gratification must be clear and reliable. It emphasized that the absence of credible evidence from the de facto Complainant, along with inconsistencies and lack of corroboration, warranted the acquittal of the Respondent-Accused. The court also highlighted the importance of the sanctioning authority's proper application of mind in corruption cases.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's judgment of acquittal due to insufficient evidence to prove the charges against the Respondent-Accused.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The Special Judge - Anti Corruption Bureau ["ACB"] - Sindhudurg - Oros acquitted the Respondent-Accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ["PC Act"] on 24/8/2011.
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 :-
(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 :-
(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 Sec. 7 was set aside by the High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the conviction for the offence under Sec. 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 supported and the issue was whether i
The court established that in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must provide reliable evidence of demand for bribes, and the failure of the de facto complainant to support....
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 A....
Burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere possession of tainted money is insufficient to prove corruption under the Preventio....
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The judgment emphasizes the need to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the requirement for direct or circumstantial evidence and the presum....
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases; failure to do so results in acquittal.
In assessing cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, mere inquiries about bribe amounts do not equate to a legal demand, and evidence must be compelling to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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
