Bombay High Court Upholds Acquittal in Corruption Case: “Mere Recovery of Money and Presence of Anthracene Powder Insufficient Without Clear Evidence of Demand and Acceptance”

Court’s Decision:

The Bombay High Court dismissed the State’s appeal against the acquittal of the accused, a Junior Engineer, under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court upheld the trial court’s findings that the prosecution failed to establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to significant contradictions in the evidence of its key witness, the complainant.

Facts:

1. The accused was employed as a Junior Engineer with the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) at Yashwant Nagar, Solapur.
2. In January 1999, the complainant sought an electricity connection for a flour mill in his wife’s name and submitted an application at the MSEB.
3. According to the prosecution:
   • The accused informed the complainant that he would need to deposit Rs. 7,000 for the connection.
   • The accused allegedly advised the complainant to report a smaller area for the premises to lower the deposit amount.
   • The complainant deposited Rs. 3,500 as an initial payment but wanted the connection installed before the Gudipadva festival on March 18, 1999.
4. The prosecution claimed that on March 16, 1999, the accused demanded Rs. 500 to complete the work, leading the complainant to approach the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB).
5. A trap was set on March 19, 1999, and the accused was apprehended after the complainant handed over Rs. 500 allegedly as a bribe.

Issues:

1. Was there a clear and unequivocal demand for a bribe by the accused?
2. Did the evidence establish the acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused?
3. Could the accused be convicted based on the complainant’s testimony, given its inconsistencies?

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The prosecution argued that the accused demanded and accepted the bribe, as evidenced by the complainant’s testimony and the recovery of the tainted money from the accused’s shirt pocket.
• The prosecution relied on the presence of anthracene powder on the accused’s fingers and pocket, which was part of the ACB’s pre-trap preparations.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The defense asserted that the money was forcibly thrust into the accused’s pocket by the complainant without any demand being made.
• It was further argued that the complainant was agitated due to delays in the electrical connection and falsely implicated the accused.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Demand and Acceptance under Section 7:
   • Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof that the accused made a specific demand for illegal gratification and subsequently accepted it.
   • Mere recovery of money from the accused is insufficient to establish these elements without corroborative evidence of demand.
2. Burden of Proof:
   • The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Any significant contradiction in the evidence can lead to acquittal.
3. Role of Sole Witness:
   • When a case hinges on the testimony of a single witness, their evidence must be clear, consistent, and credible.

Precedent Analysis:

While no specific judgments were cited, the court followed established legal principles emphasizing the need for conclusive evidence of demand and acceptance in corruption cases.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Contradictions in the Complainant’s Testimony:
   • In his examination-in-chief, the complainant stated that the accused demanded Rs. 500 on March 16, 1999, and accepted the money on March 19, 1999.
   • However, during cross-examination, he admitted that he had forcibly thrust the money into the accused’s pocket, without any demand being made.
   • This admission directly contradicted the prosecution’s case and undermined the credibility of the complainant’s allegations.
2. Lack of Corroboration:
   • The prosecution’s case rested solely on the complainant’s testimony. The panch witnesses confirmed the recovery of the money but did not corroborate the alleged demand.
3. Reasonable Doubt:
   • The court observed that the complainant was agitated due to delays in receiving the electrical connection. This could have motivated him to falsely implicate the accused.
   • The trial court had also noted inconsistencies in the prosecution’s narrative, which the High Court found valid and persuasive.

Conclusion:

The High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It upheld the trial court’s findings that:

• There was no clear evidence of demand and acceptance of a bribe.
• The complainant’s testimony was unreliable due to contradictions between his examination-in-chief and cross-examination.
• The benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, as required under criminal law.

Implications:

1. Reinforcement of Legal Standards:
   • This judgment reiterates that conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires unequivocal proof of both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
   • Mere recovery of money or presence of anthracene powder is insufficient without corroborating evidence.
2. Safeguarding Accused Rights:
   • The judgment underscores the principle that when two competing versions exist, the one favorable to the accused must be accepted.
3. Impact on Anti-Corruption Cases:
   • This case highlights the challenges faced by the prosecution in proving corruption charges, particularly when the case relies on the testimony of a sole witness.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Denies Disability Pension for Naval Officer; Cites Military Pension Regulations Requiring a Direct Causal Link to Service Conditions, Which Petitioner Failed to Meet