In CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.728 OF 1998-BOM HC- Demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, reiterates Bombay HC while giving clean chit to Cop after finding no evidence to prove demand of bribe Justice V.G.Bisht [30-06-2022]

Read Order: DAMU RAMU AVHAD V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

LE Correspondent

Mumbai, July 4, 2022:  The Bombay High Court has set aside the conviction awarded to a Police Sub-Inspector under Sections 5(2) read with 5(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1947 after finding that the appellant-accused was not present when the amount of Rs 350 came to be recovered from the possession of acquitted accused. 

By placing heavy reliance on the judgment of the Top Court in State of Punjab V/s. Madan Mohanlal Verma, the Bench of Justice V.G.Bisht reaffirmed, “It is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine-qua-non for constituting the offense under the PC Act of 1947. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused.”

According to the complainant, his younger brother had gone to Kopargaon to attend a marriage ceremony. On the same day, the appellant and other police staff carried out a prohibition raid in the village and also visited the complainant’s house asking about the whereabouts of the complainant’s young brother.  Thereafter, the complainant visited the local Police Station and met PSI Avhad who allegedly asked the complainant to bring his brother and also Rs 500 for bail.Consequently, the complaint approached the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau and complained about the demand made by PSI Avhad. He also informed that neither he had financial transaction with PSI Avhad nor any personal enmity. 

In view of the same, the Anti Corruption Bureau summoned two panch witnesses and after briefing them as to the anti corruption raid to be carried out visited the office of PSI. Subsequently, prosecution  against the appellant and the co-accused Police Havildar Pawar was initiated under Section 5 (2)  read with Sections 5(i)(d) of the PC Act, 1947 andSections 161 and 165-A of the IPC.  The Special Judge found appellant to be guilty of the charges under section 5(2) read with section 5(i)(b) of the PC Act of 1947 and section 161 of the IPC. It was against this conviction and sentence, the present appeal was preferred by the appellant.

After hearing the submissions of the parties at length and after pursuing the material on record, the Court observed there was no specific demand of monies in the specific amount form the appellant and the prosecution therefore failed to prove the factum of acceptance of bribe money of Rs. 350 by the appellant from the complainant on as per the charges framed against him. 

Observing that it was necessary for the prosecution to prove the twin requirements of ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of the bribe amount by the appellant, the Bench confirmed the view that that the appellant was not present when the amount of Rs 350 came to be recovered from the possession of acquitted accused.Thus, the instant appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment and order was set aside.