The Bombay High Court’s refusal to grant leave to appeal in this corruption case underscores a critical doctrinal boundary in prosecuting public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act: mere suspicion or circumstantial alignment is insufficient. The judgment reaffirms that conviction requires concrete, unambiguous proof that the public servant personally demanded and accepted a bribe, and that the prosecution’s failure to establish this core element renders acquittal legally sound.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The State of Maharashtra sought to appeal the acquittal of two respondents under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case arose from an alleged demand of Rs. 15,000 for the installation of a new distribution transformer. The complainant, Kiran Prakash Holkunde (PW 1), claimed that Accused No. 1, a Junior Engineer, demanded Rs. 10,000 upfront and Rs. 5,000 later. The complainant alleged that Rs. 10,000 was paid to Accused No. 2, a private laborer, and that the trap was conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB).
Procedural History
- December 7, 2012: Complainant submitted application for transformer installation
- December 11, 2012: Rs. 10,000 allegedly paid to Accused No. 2
- December 2012: ACB conducted trap and recovered money from Accused No. 2
- December 22, 2017: Special Judge, Nilanga, acquitted both respondents
- January 2018: State filed application for leave to appeal
The Parties' Positions
- Prosecution: Argued that the complainant and shadow panch were consistent; telephonic conversations proved demand; recovery from Accused No. 2 established acceptance.
- Defense: Contended that no direct evidence linked Accused No. 1 to demand or receipt; complainant’s testimony was inconsistent and motivated; key witness PW 3 contradicted the prosecution.
Relief Sought
The State sought leave to appeal the acquittal, arguing that the Trial Court misappreciated evidence and that the prosecution’s case was strong on merit.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act can be invoked when the alleged demand and acceptance are not directly attributable to the public servant, and when the payment is made to a third party without proven abetment or conspiracy.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/State
The State argued that the complainant’s testimony, corroborated by the shadow panch, established a clear demand by Accused No. 1. It relied on the recovery of money from Accused No. 2 and alleged telephonic conversations to infer that the payment was made pursuant to the public servant’s demand. The State contended that the Trial Court erred in dismissing the case due to minor inconsistencies, citing State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Kumar to argue that minor contradictions do not vitiate the entire prosecution case.
For the Respondents
The defense emphasized that Accused No. 1 never admitted to demanding or receiving any money. The payment was made to Accused No. 2, a private individual with no official role. Crucially, PW 3, who was allegedly the source of the payment, denied any involvement. The defense relied on K. Veeraswami v. Union of India and State of U.P. v. Krishna Kumar to assert that the prosecution must prove direct nexus between the public servant and the bribe, and that absence of such proof mandates acquittal.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence and found fatal inconsistencies undermining the prosecution’s case. The complainant admitted that he did not personally pay the amount to Accused No. 1, and that the payment was made to Accused No. 2. The Court noted that PW 3, the only witness who could have corroborated the payment to Accused No. 2, explicitly denied it. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish any conspiracy or abetment between the two accused.
"There is no distinct evidence to show nexus between them. There was variance in the evidence of complainant and shadow panch as well as PW 3."
The Court further highlighted that the complainant’s own admission - that the quotation for the transformer had already been forwarded - undermined the alleged motive for the Rs. 5,000 demand. The Court emphasized that the burden of proving demand and acceptance by the public servant lies squarely on the prosecution, and that circumstantial inferences cannot substitute direct proof.
The Court also noted the complainant’s motive: he had previously been penalized for electricity theft, and no independent farmers who allegedly contributed to the bribe were examined. These factors, combined with the lack of direct evidence against Accused No. 1, rendered the prosecution’s case legally unsustainable.
The Verdict
The State’s application for leave to appeal was rejected. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the public servant demanded or accepted a bribe, and that acquittal by the Trial Court was legally justified. No grounds for interference were found.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Direct Proof of Demand Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must ensure that evidence directly links the public servant to the demand - oral or written - before filing charges
- Relying on third-party payments without proof of abetment or conspiracy will not sustain a conviction
- Prosecutors should prioritize recording direct communications between the public servant and complainant
Third-Party Payments Require Corroborative Nexus
- If money is paid to a non-official, the prosecution must establish a clear chain of abetment, conspiracy, or agency
- Absence of testimony from the person receiving the money fatally weakens the case
- Recovery from a private individual, without more, cannot be equated with acceptance by a public servant
Motive and Credibility of Complainant Are Central
- Prior grievances against the public servant must be addressed and explained
- Unexamined contributors to alleged bribes raise reasonable doubt
- Courts will scrutinize complainant credibility with heightened rigor in corruption cases
