The Bombay High Court has set aside the 2008 acquittal of an Indapur Tahsildar and his clerk in a 2005 bribery case and convicted both for demanding and accepting illegal gratification to pass a mutation order. Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale held that the trial court had misread the evidence and ignored clear proof of demand and acceptance.
The complaint was lodged after the Tahsildar allegedly demanded ₹3,000 later negotiated to ₹1,000 to issue an order in a mutation dispute concerning the informant’s ancestral land. The Anti-Corruption Bureau, Pune, laid a trap on 28 December 2005, during which the bribe amount, laced with anthracene powder, was accepted by a third person at the instance of the Tahsildar and clerk. The currency notes were recovered from the drawer of the clerk’s computer room, and both the informant and the panch witness corroborated the demand and acceptance.
The Special Judge had acquitted the accused primarily relying on log-book entries purporting to show that the Tahsildar was on tour on the date of the initial demand, and on the fact that the mutation order had been passed a day before the trap. The High Court rejected both findings, observing that the log-book merely reflected vehicle movement not the Tahsildar’s actual presence and that the defence had failed to prove the plea of alibi by strict evidence. The Court further held that the passing of the order did not negate the simultaneous demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
Noting that corruption “erodes public faith” regardless of the amount involved, the Court convicted the Tahsildar and clerk under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Considering the lapse of 17 years and their personal circumstances, the Court imposed the statutory minimum sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment and ₹500 fine each, directing them to surrender within twelve weeks.
The acquittal of the third accused, who merely received the cash and whose knowledge of the bribe was not proved, was upheld. The State’s appeal was accordingly partly allowed.
Appearances:
Ms. Anuja Sunil Gotad, APP for the Appellant-State.
Mr. Uday Dube, Senior Advocate, with Balwant Salunkhe, for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Saurabh Butala, for the Respondent No.3
