Prevention of Corruption Act, mere possession of tainted money without evidence of demand - No conviction.

Bombay High Court Upholds Acquittal in Corruption Case Against Talathi. Mere possession of tainted money deemed insufficient without proof of demand and acceptance by accused

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench has dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra, upholding the acquittal of Shaikh Moin, a Talathi, in a corruption case. The case, initially tried at the Special Judge, Nanded, revolved around allegations under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Justice Abhay S. Waghwase, presiding over the appeal, reaffirmed the trial court's decision, emphasizing that mere possession of tainted money without evidence of demand or acceptance does not substantiate charges of corruption. The judgment underscored that the absence of demand on the day of the trap undermined the prosecution's case, making the acquittal warranted.

The case originated from a complaint by Suresh Rathod, who alleged that Moin demanded Rs. 1,500 as illegal gratification for making entries in the revenue record based on a sale deed. Despite evidence presented by the prosecution, including testimonies from the complainant and a shadow pancha, the trial court found inconsistencies, particularly the voluntary handing over of money without demand, weakening the prosecution's stance.

The appeal argued that the trial court failed to appreciate the consistent evidence of demand from the complainant and shadow pancha. However, the High Court found that the complainant's own testimony pointed to him offering money before any demand, thus inflicting a serious dent to the prosecution's case.

Justice Waghwase noted the lack of trustworthy, reliable, and legally acceptable evidence for the accusations, and highlighted the principles governing interference in acquittal judgments, stressing that appellate courts should not overturn such decisions in the absence of patent perversity or compelling reasons.

The decision reaffirms the legal principle that for corruption charges, the burden of proof lies heavily on demonstrating both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, not merely possession of tainted currency.

Bottom Line:

In cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, mere possession of tainted money without evidence of demand or acceptance cannot lead to conviction.

Statutory provision(s): Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

State of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Moin, (Bombay)(Aurangabad Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2782327