Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 24789
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
PRAKASH D. NAIK, J
Shafi Abdul Rahiman Kudale – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 376 of 1998
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Niranjan P. Shimpi
For the Respondents: Mr. R. M. Pethe, APP
Proof of demand for bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere acceptance is insufficient without prior established demand.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Appeal against conviction - Appellant convicted for demanding bribe in return for documents related to a seized vehicle - Prosecution failed to prove the demand for illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt - Evidence showed inconsistencies and lack of corroboration - Appeal allowed, conviction set aside (Paras 15, 16).
(B) Legal Principle - Proof of demand of bribe is essential for conviction under P.C. Act - Mere acceptance of money is insufficient without establishing prior demand for such corruption - The benefit of doubt must be given to the accused when prosecution’s case falls short of proof (Paras 15, 16).
Facts of the case:
Appellant was convicted for demanding and accepting a bribe for returning documents related to a seized vehicle, but inconsistencies in the testimonies led to doubts regarding the demand.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution had not established demand of illegal gratification, and the inconsistencies in witnesses’ statements warranted an acquittal.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that there was a demand for a bribe, necessary for conviction under the Preventive Corruption Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that proof of demand is crucial; therefore, inconsistencies and lack of concrete evidence led to acquittal of the appellant, emphasizing that mere acceptance of money is insufficient for conviction.
Result: Criminal Appeal No. 376 of 1998 is allowed; the conviction is set aside.
JUDGMENT :
1. This is an Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. challenging the Judgment and Order dated 26th February 1998 passed by learned Special Judge, Solapur in Special Case No. 15 of 1994. Appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “P.C. Act”) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period of one and half year and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.1250/-. The Appellant is further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period of nine months and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.750/-.
Substantive sentences to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution is as under:-
(i) The complainant is resident of Solapur. His father had purchased matador in the name of complainant. He used to ply matador at Valsang and Akkalkot. On 29th January 1994, the matador vehicle was intercepted by RTO for illegal traffic. Memo was issued. License and the papers of the vehicle were taken into custody by the concerned Officer.
(ii) The accused was working as Junior Clerk in Court cases Section at RTO Office. He used to prepare the report and obtain orders from RTO and send cases to the Court.
(iii) On 8th February 1994, the complainant visited RTO office and contacted the accused. The complainant enquired about the papers of his vehicle. The accused told him to deposit penalty of Rs.858/- at the RTO office. The complainant demanded papers of vehicle. The accused told the complainant that he would send the case to the Court and on depositing fine and on payment of Rs.700/- to him, he would return the papers. The case was sent to the Court on the same day. The driver of the matador pleaded guilty and deposited fine.
(iv) The complainant collected the receipt of fine and went to RTO Office. He contacted the accused and enquired about the papers of his vehicle. The accused told him to pay Rs.700/- and he would return the papers on such payment. The complainant requested for reducing the amount. The accused declined to reduce the amount.
(v) The complainant approached Anti Corruption Bureau Office, Solapur. His complaint was recorded by P.I. Shaikh. It was decided to lay a trap.
(vi) Panch witnesses were called from the Office of Superintending Engineer, Ujani Canal, Circle, Solapur.
(vii) On 9th February 1994, the complainant and panch witnesses appeared in the office of ACB. The complainant narrated his complaint to the panch witnesses. Necessary instructions were given to the complainant and panch witnesses. Anthracene powder was applied to those notes. Those notes were kept in the shirt pocket of complainant. Pre-trap panchnama was recorded.
(viii)The raiding party went to the office of RTO. The complainant and panch No.1 entered the RTO office. Other members of raiding party remained in scattered position waiting for the signal.
(ix) The complainant produced receipt of payment of fine and penalty before the accused. The entry about payment was made in the register. The accused told the complainant to bring written application for return of papers. The complainant went outside and contacted one writer and prepared written application and the same was tendered to the accused. At that time, the accused asked complainant whether he has brought Rs.700/-. The complainant answered in the affirmative. The accused told the complainant to remain near the gate and he would follow him. The complainant and panch witness went to the gate of office.
(x) The accused approached complainant and suggested that they would have tea. They went to the canteen and sat on katta. The complainant requested accused to return the papers urgently and the accused told him to pay Rs.700/-. The complainant removed Rs.700/- from his left shirt pocket and the accused accepted the same by right hand, counted the same by both the hands and kept the amount in
