By placing heavy reliance on the case of the State of Punjab V/s. Madan Mohanlal Verma, the Bombay High Court reiterated that mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused. In view of the same, the instant appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in order to assail the conviction recorded under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1947.
A Single Bench of Justice V.G. Bhist allowed the present appeal instituted by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the conviction recorded under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1947. The Single Judge observed that the prosecution failed to prove the factum of acceptance of bribe money of Rs. 350/- by the appellant from the complainant on March 11, 1988 as per the charges framed against him.
The present appeal was preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the conviction recorded under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 wherein the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and further simple imprisonment for one month under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and a further imprisonment of 15 days in a Special case of 1989.
It was the prosecution's case that according to the complainant, his younger brother had gone to Kopargaon to attend a marriage ceremony. On the same day, the appellant and other police staff carried out a prohibition raid in the village. They also visited the complainant’s house and asked the whereabouts of the complainant’s young brother.
Thereafter, the complainant visited the local Police Station and met PSI Avhad. PSI Avhad asked the complainant to bring his brother and also Rs 500 /- for bail along with surety the next day.
Consequently, the complaint approached the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau and complained about the demand made by PSI Avhad. He also informed that neither he had financial transaction with PSI Avhad nor any personal enmity. In view of the same, the Anti Corruption Bureau summoned two panch witnesses and after briefing them as to the anti corruption raid to be carried out visited the office of PSI Avhad on March 11, 1998.
Subsequently, prosecution against the appellant and the co- accused Police Havildar Pawar were initiated under Section 5 (2) read with Sections 5(i)(d) of the PC Act, 1947 and Sections 161 and 165-A of the IPC. The prosecution examined their witnesses to prove the charges framed against both the accused.
After hearing the submissions of the parties at length and after pursuing the material on record, the Court observed that it is settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine-qua-non for constituting the offence under the PC Act of 1947. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused. Mere receipt of amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten the guilt in absence of any evidence with regard to ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of the amount as illegal gratification, as held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab V/s. Madan Mohanlal Verma
In view of the same, the Court deemed it necessary to go through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
After analyzing the evidence closely, the Court was of the view that there was no specific demand of monies in the specific amount form the appellant, the prosecution therefore failed to prove the factum of acceptance of bribe money of Rs. 350/- by the appellant from the complainant on March 11, 1988 as per the charges framed against him, the Court noted.
Thus, the instant appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment and order was set aside.
Case name: DAMU RAMU AVHAD V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Picture Source :
