Prevention of Corruption - Mere recovery of money without proof of demand not enough

Bombay High Court Acquits Talathi in Corruption Case, Court Overturns Conviction Due to Lack of Proof of Bribe Demand and Invalid Sanction Order

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has acquitted Sk. Afsar Sk. Mohammad, a Talathi, who was previously convicted for corruption charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court set aside the earlier conviction by the Special Judge, Parbhani, citing a failure by the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which are essential for a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.

The appellant was initially found guilty by the Special Judge, Parbhani, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a total of three years, along with fines, for allegedly demanding a bribe of Rs. 2,000, later reduced to Rs. 700, to facilitate grant-in-aid under a social security scheme. The prosecution's case was built on a complaint by Lokadiba Punjaji Kokate, who claimed the accused demanded the bribe to process documents under the scheme.

However, the High Court, presided by Justice Sushil M. Ghodeswar, found that the prosecution failed to substantiate the critical elements of the charges, namely the demand and acceptance of the bribe. The court noted discrepancies in witness testimonies and pointed out that independent witnesses did not support the prosecution's case.

Additionally, the court questioned the validity of the sanction order, which is mandatory for prosecuting public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The sanctioning authority had relied on a draft order from the Anti-Corruption Bureau, which lacked a clear application of mind and substantive satisfaction, rendering the sanction invalid.

The judgment emphasized that mere recovery of money from an accused does not establish guilt without proof of demand, a principle upheld in various Supreme Court rulings cited by the defense. The court underscored the necessity of establishing demand as a sine qua non for corruption charges.

The acquittal marks a significant turn in the case, highlighting the judiciary's insistence on strict adherence to evidentiary standards in corruption cases. The fine amount, if paid, is to be refunded to the appellant, and his bail bond has been canceled.

Bottom Line:

Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is indispensable for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) - Mere recovery of money without proof of demand does not establish the offence.

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

Sk. Afsar Sk. Mohammad v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay)(Aurangabad Bench) : Law Finder Doc id # 2817221