In Ambadas Devram Chavan v/s The State of Maharashtra, the High Court has acquitted an appellant who had been convicted by the Special Judge (Anti-Corruption) Pune under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C. Act). The appellant, accused of accepting bribes and aiding in corrupt practices, was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fined. However, after a detailed examination of the case, the High Court found the evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction and set aside the verdict.
Case Background:
The appellant was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe in connection with the restoration of a fair price shop license. According to the complainant, Pramod Roopchand Solanki (PW-1), his sister’s fair price shop license had been cancelled due to some alleged irregularities. When the cancellation order was overturned in an appeal, Solanki approached the Deputy Commissioner, Dnyaneshwar Jawanjal, to expedite the renewal process. Jawanjal reportedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 2,00,000, which was eventually negotiated down to Rs. 1,00,000. Subsequently, the complainant was directed to meet with accused No.1, who worked as a Junior Clerk, to facilitate the payment.
PW-1 testified that the bribe was initially to be paid in two installments of Rs. 50,000, but the amount was later agreed to be given in full. The complainant further deposed that he handed over the money in two parts: Rs. 50,000 to accused No.1, and Rs. 10,000 to the appellant, who was responsible for preparing the necessary challan for the payment of a fine imposed as part of the renewal process.
Court's Findings:
The central issue in the case was whether the appellant had demanded or accepted a bribe. The High Court analyzed the testimony of the complainant, PW-1, and found no evidence to substantiate that the appellant had made any demand for illegal gratification. PW-1 explicitly mentioned that the Rs. 10,000 handed over to the appellant was for the purpose of preparing the challan to pay the fine, and not as a bribe. Furthermore, the deposition of PW-1 was inconsistent with that of the shadow witness, PW-2, particularly regarding where and how the money was exchanged. These discrepancies led the Court to question the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
The High Court also pointed out that the prosecution had failed to include Dnyaneshwar Jawanjal, who had allegedly demanded the bribe, as an accused. Since Jawanjal’s role in the demand was central to the case, the absence of any evidence against him further weakened the case against the appellant.
Key Legal Principles Applied:
The Court emphasized that for a conviction under the P.C. Act, the prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond a reasonable doubt. It referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (2023) 4 SCC 731, where the Court laid down that demand and acceptance of a bribe must be established either through direct or circumstantial evidence. In the present case, the High Court concluded that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to prove that the appellant had engaged in corrupt practices.
The High Court’s ruling underscored the necessity of clear and consistent evidence to establish the guilt of an accused under the P.C. Act. Given the inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the lack of a clear demand from the appellant, the Court acquitted him of the charges.
Conclusion:
The High Court quashed the conviction of the appellant and acquitted him of all charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the P.C. Act. The fine imposed on the appellant was ordered to be refunded. The case serves as a reminder of the critical importance of corroborated and reliable evidence in corruption cases and highlights the challenges in securing convictions under the P.C. Act without clear proof of illegal demands and gratification.
Final Words:
This judgment represents a significant decision, particularly in cases involving allegations of bribery and corruption. It illustrates the importance of judicial scrutiny in ensuring that only those with solid evidence of wrongdoing are held accountable, and that the rights of the accused are protected when the prosecution fails to prove its case.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
