The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, has set aside the conviction of a former Zilla Parishad Executive Engineer in a corruption case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the mandatory ingredients of the demand of the bribe and a valid sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The case stemmed from allegations that the appellant, a Zilla Parishad Executive Engineer, demanded a ₹4,000 bribe to clear a road construction bill, leading the Anti-Corruption Bureau to lay a trap and recover tainted currency. Consequently, the appellant was chargesheeted and tried before the Special Judge, Nanded, where he was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine.
Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred a Criminal Appeal before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the findings on the demand of the bribe, acceptance, and the validity of the sanction for prosecution.
Allowing the criminal appeal, JusticeSanjay A. Deshmukh held that mere admission of the sanction order by the defence did not dispense with the prosecution’s obligation to prove that the sanctioning authority had applied its mind, as required under the safeguards of Article 311of the Constitution and Section 19 of the PC Act. The Court noted that the “Advocate appearing for the accused has no authority to admit any document contrary to the interest of the accused. Advocate is not appointed to give admission on behalf of accused contrary to law.”
On the issue of bribe demand, the Court noted that the panch witness had categorically admitted during cross-examination that he could not hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused at the time of alleged demand. In the absence of reliable and corroborated evidence proving demand, the Court reiterated that mere acceptance or recovery of tainted money is insufficient to sustain a conviction, unless demand is proved.
Finding the prosecution’s case reasonably doubtful on both counts, the Court extended the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him of all charges.
Appearances
Mr. Manoharrao A. Tandale, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. D. J. Patil, APP for Respondent / State.
