2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 168097

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M.M. Sathaye, J
Shankar Balwant Malvankar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 639 of 2006

In corruption cases, the offence is established when prosecution proves the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification through corroborated evidence, including scientific markers. Proper sanction and investigative authority are legally satisfied by independent application of mind and standing administrative government orders subject to judicial notice.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 313, 211, 212, and 218 - Offences by public servant - Bribery and corruption - Proof of demand and acceptance - Validity of sanction - Authorization of Investigating Officer. (Paras 1, 8, 19, 41-43)

(B) Evidence of Demand and Acceptance - Proof of demand and acceptance is a sine qua non for establishing the offence under the Act - Where the prosecution establishes consistent evidence through a complainant and independent witnesses regarding the demand and subsequent recovery of tainted currency, supported by forensic evidence of chemical markers on the accused, the offence is proven beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 21-23, 34)

(C) Administrative Sanction and Investigation - A sanctioning authority under the Act must apply an independent mind, though it may consider input from subordinate papers - Authorization for investigation by an officer of specific rank, supported by general administrative government orders, is a matter of judicial notice requiring no additional proof during trial. (Paras 19, 42-43)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a public servant, allegedly demanded a bribe from a complainant to avoid official action regarding a construction project. A trap was laid, involving the use of tainted currency treated with chemical powder. Upon the execution of the trap, the accused accepted the money, attempted to flee, and was subsequently apprehended. Chemical examination revealed the presence of the marking powder on the accused's hands and clothing. The defense argued that there was no demand, the sanction was mechanical, and the investigation officer lacked proper authorization.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence provided by the complainant and the independent shadow witness, coupled with the recovery of the tainted currency and corroborating chemical evidence, proved the charge of demand and acceptance. The sanctioning authority had followed the due process of studying the relevant case papers. Furthermore, the court took judicial notice of existing administrative orders authorizing the rank of the investigating officer to conduct such operations, dismissing claims of investigative incompetence.

Issues: The main issues were the valid application of mind by the sanctioning authority, the proof of demand on the day of the trap, the legality of the investigation, and the consistency of evidence between the complainant and independent witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that scientific evidence and the corroborated testimony of independent witnesses, when clearly linking the accused to the receipt of tainted money specifically demanded by them, are sufficient to establish guilt. Procedural challenges regarding investigation authorization or minor discrepancies in witness statements are insufficient to negate the core proof of corruption when substantive evidence remains unimpeachable.

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.