Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

A bench of Justice Shrikant Kulkarni accepted an appeal against an impugned judgment by the Special Judge (PC Act), Aurangabad while setting aside the conviction. The Bench was of the opinion,

"The learned Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge has driven himself on morality and ethics and convicted the appellant/accused for the above said offences, when the prosecution has failed to prove the basic legal requirement of demand and acceptance of bribe within four corners of law".

In the pertinent matter, the appellant (Sub Divisional Engineer in the Department of Telecommunications) was convicted on the charges of corruption, where he took a bribe of Rs. 2000 for installation of an STD PCO. The counsel for the appellant alleged that the complainant's story which stated that, the bribe amount was put on the table of the appellant at the time of trap, and was recovered from the socks of the appellant, was a concocted story. 

Justice Kulkarni after hearing the arguments put forth by the parties, made an usual reference to a catena of judgments where the bribe was not proved by the suspension per se. In M.R. Purushotham Vs. State of Karnatakathat, the Supreme Court had held, when demand of bribe is not proved by the prosecution, mere possession and recovery of currency notes from the accused without proof of demand do not constitute offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.

The Bench opined, "It is well settled position of law that the evidence of witness must be read as a whole. The part of testimony of a hostile witness can be accepted, which is found to be reliable and trustworthy. The question is whether the evidence of above two witnesses on the material point of demand and acceptance of bribe is found reliable and inspired confidence of the Court to award the conviction".

The Bench made the following observation:

1. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the basic legal requirement of demand and acceptance of bribe as contemplated under Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.

2. There was suspicion about the so called recovery of tainted currency notes/illegal gratification.

3. The 'candid' statements made a prosecution witness, gave severe blow to the prosecution case.

4.Sanctioning authority did not apply his mind independently having regard to the facts of the case.

The Court further stated that, "The corruption is spreading like cancer in our great nation. The disease of the corruption has been with us since long time. The common man is facing this rampant corruption, but a person for the charges of corruption under the Act cannot be convicted on moral and ethics. When the law provides certain mandatory requirements for proving offence, no shortcut is permitted".

 

CASE TITLE: Sayaji Dashrath Kawade vs. State of Maharashtra