Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Prakash D. Naik, J.
Bhagwan Nivrutti Wagh - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 554 of 2016
Decided On : 28-06-2023
CORRUPTION - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - Sec. 7, Sec. 13(1)(d), Sec. 13(2) - The court discussed the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, particularly Sections 7 and 13, which define the offences of bribery and the necessary elements of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The court emphasized that mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient for conviction without clear evidence of demand and acceptance. The interpretations of these sections highlighted the necessity for corroborative evidence and the burden of proof on the prosecution, ultimately influencing the court's decision to acquit the appellant due to insufficient evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 3,000 to avoid seizing a tractor involved in a theft case. The complainant alleged that the appellant, a police officer, threatened to seize the tractor unless the bribe was paid. The prosecution's case relied on the complainant's testimony and the recovery of the bribe amount from the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond a reasonable doubt. Key witnesses were not examined, and the evidence presented was insufficient to corroborate the complainant's claims. The court noted the lack of independent evidence and the absence of crucial documentation, such as call detail records, which could have supported the prosecution's case.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of a bribe by the appellant, and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the demand for illegal gratification is a critical element for establishing an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It emphasized that the prosecution must provide reliable evidence to support claims of bribery, and the absence of corroborative evidence from independent witnesses or documentation undermines the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The appellant is convicted vide Judgment and order dtd. 19/7/2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Special Case (ACB) No.7 of 2010 for offence under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "PC Act") and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.3, 000.00. The appellant is also convicted for offence under Sec. 13(1)(d), r/w Sec. 13(2) of the PC Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.3, 000.00. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case is as under :-
<WXY>i) The complainant's father had an agricultural land at Avankhed. He purchased the tractor for agricultural work. Bakaram Kokate was appointed as driver on the tractor. On 28/6/2019, the tractor was hired by Ashok Bahirat. Bakaram Kokate had performed agricultural work in the agricultural land of Mr. Bahirat. After completing work, the tractor was brought back. ii) The appellant/accused gave telephonic call to the complainant and called him at Dindori Police Station. The complainant approached him. The appellant/accused told the complainant that the watchman of cold storage namely Mr. Pendhare has lodged a complaint alleging that Mr. Bakaram has stolen plastic and iron pipes from cold storage.
iii) The complainant contacted Mr. Bakaram and inquired with him about the incident. Mr. Bakaram confirmed the incident. The complainant called him to Police Station. Mr.Bakaram told the Police that, he had kept those pipes at the house of his brother. The accused told him to put those pipes at its place and Mr.Bakaram complied his directions.
iv) The accused told the complainant that, it is a theft case and he can seize the tractor and keep it at the Police Station. The accused demanded amount of Rs.5, 000.00 for not initiating action of seizure of tractor. The complainant replied that he would return after taking the decision. v) On 6/7/2019, the accused again made a phone call to the complainant and called him at Police Station. The complainant approached him. The appellant asked him about the next course of action. The complainant showed inability to pay the amount of Rs.5, 000.00 but agreed to pay Rs.3, 000.00. The accused demanded the said amount immediately. The complainant showed his inability to part the amount immediately. He told the accused that he would bring the amount from his maternal brother.
vi) The complainant was not interested in parting the amount of Rs.5, 000.00 to the accused and hence he approached the Anti Corruption Bureau, Nashik (for short "ACB") and lodged the complaint. vii) The ACB Officer called the panch witnesses. They verified the complaint. The complainant produced bribe amount of Rs.3, 000.00 in the form of 6 currency notes of Rs.500.00 each. Pre-trap procedure was completed. Instructions were given to the raiding party including the complainant and panch witnesses. The panch witnesses accompanied the complainant. The tainted amount was accepted by the accused. The raiding party apprehended the accused. The currency notes were recovered from him. Post trap panchanama was recorded. Investigation proceeded. On completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
viii) The charge was framed against the accused vide order dtd. 16/3/2011 for offences under Ss. 7 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the PC Act.</WXY>
3. The prosecution examined four witnesses. PW-1 Samadhan Nanasaheb Pingal is the original complainant. PW-2 Nitin Jayprakash Gupta is the Sanctioning Authority. PW-3 Anil Suklal Pawar is the panch No.1 for pre-trap panchanama. PW-4 Pradip Nivrutti Ugale is the Investigating Officer.
4. Learned Advocate for the Appellant submitted as under :-
<WXY>i. The prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities. The evidence of witnesses suffers from doubt. The prosecution has not established demand and acceptance of bribe amount beyond reasonable doubt. ii. The panch witnesses
AI
The demand and acceptance of bribe must be established beyond reasonable doubt, and mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient for conviction without corroborative evidence.
The need for corroboration of evidence in corruption cases, the importance of a valid sanction, and the requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The lack of proof of demand for illegal gratification is a crucial factor in determining the conviction under Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the PC Act.
The prosecution must establish the 'demand' and 'acceptance' of the bribe amount to constitute the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
Mere recovery of tainted notes without proof of demand and voluntary acceptance insufficient for conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) PC Act; demand is sine qua non, presumption under Section 20 ina....
Point of Law : Defence cannot be ballasted with the premise that Courts will, from the outset, be guarded against and suspicious of the testimony of trap witnesses.
[The necessity of proving the demand for bribe as a fundamental requirement for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the importance of independent witness testimony in establishing ....
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
