The Bombay High Court’s dismissal of the State’s appeal in this corruption case reaffirms foundational principles in prosecuting public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act: without credible corroboration and procedural compliance, even serious allegations cannot sustain a conviction. This judgment reinforces the judiciary’s caution against relying on the uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses in bribery cases.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The prosecution alleged that Ashok Haribhau Abnave, a police constable, demanded a bribe of Rs. 5,000 from the complainant to prevent his arrest in a criminal case. The complainant paid Rs. 2,000 in advance and agreed to pay the balance later. He then approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), leading to a trap operation. The prosecution claimed the accused accepted the remaining Rs. 3,000 in the presence of a shadow panch.
Procedural History
- 12 June 2007: Alleged demand and partial payment occurred.
- 13 June 2007: Complainant lodged complaint with ACB (Exh.22).
- Pre-trap panchanama (Exh.23) recorded by ACB.
- Trial Court (2011): Acquitted the accused, holding prosecution failed to prove demand, acceptance, or valid sanction.
- 2012: State filed Criminal Appeal No. 176 of 2012 before the Bombay High Court.
Relief Sought
The State sought to set aside the acquittal and convict the accused under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, particularly when the sole eyewitness testimony of the complainant was uncorroborated and the sanctioning authority failed to demonstrate application of mind.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The State argued that the complainant’s testimony remained consistent and credible, and that anthracene traces on the accused’s handkerchief corroborated the acceptance of cash. It contended that minor inconsistencies in the shadow panch’s testimony should not invalidate the entire prosecution case, especially since parts of his evidence aligned with the complainant’s account. The State further asserted that the sanctioning authority’s testimony - though imperfect - was sufficient to establish procedural compliance, and that the trial court erred in rejecting it based on speculative doubts.
For the Respondent
The accused’s counsel argued that the prosecution’s case collapsed on two critical grounds: first, the shadow panch, the only independent witness, explicitly stated he did not witness the transaction and could not identify the accused; second, the sanctioning authority failed to record any preliminary inquiry or consider the complainant’s criminal history, rendering the sanction invalid under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The defense emphasized that the complainant’s testimony contained material omissions in his police statement, undermining its reliability.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a meticulous review of the evidence, focusing on the reliability of the complainant and the shadow panch. It noted that the complainant’s testimony contained significant omissions in his initial police statement, including failure to mention the accused’s phone number, the timing of the call, or the presence of the shadow panch during the transaction. These omissions were not explained and were inconsistent with the trial testimony.
"The serious blow was suffered by prosecution when independent shadow panch witness deposed that he stayed at counter when complainant alone went to accused and that conversation between both of them was already over by the time he went out."
The Court held that in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, where the complainant is an interested party, corroboration by an independent witness is not merely desirable but indispensable. The shadow panch’s testimony directly contradicted the prosecution’s narrative: he did not see the accused enter the hotel, did not witness the exchange, and only noticed the complainant handing over money after the fact, in darkness. This failure of corroboration fatally undermined the prosecution’s case.
Regarding sanction, the Court observed that the sanctioning authority admitted he had no record of a preliminary inquiry, was unaware of the complainant’s criminal history, and failed to consider the presence of another constable (Dalvi) during the alleged demand. The Court emphasized that sanction under Section 19 requires a conscious application of mind to the facts, not a mechanical endorsement. The absence of such scrutiny rendered the sanction invalid.
The Court concluded that the trial court’s acquittal was well-reasoned and legally sound, as the prosecution failed to discharge its burden on all essential elements.
The Verdict
The State’s appeal was dismissed. The Court upheld the acquittal, holding that corroboration of the complainant’s testimony by an independent witness is mandatory in bribery cases and that sanction under Section 19 requires demonstrable application of mind. Without either, a conviction cannot stand.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Corroboration Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must ensure that every bribery prosecution under the PC Act includes at least one credible, independent witness who directly observes the transaction.
- Relying solely on the complainant’s testimony - even if seemingly consistent - is now legally untenable.
- Shadow panch testimony must be meticulously prepared; any deviation from the prosecution narrative must be addressed before trial.
Sanction Must Be Demonstrably Reasoned
- Prosecutors must produce evidence that the sanctioning authority reviewed the case file, considered objections, and recorded reasons for granting sanction.
- If the sanctioning authority is unaware of material facts (e.g., complainant’s criminal record), the sanction is void.
- In future cases, the prosecution should tender the sanctioning authority’s internal notes or memos to prove application of mind.
Omissions in Police Statements Are Fatal
- Any material omission in the initial police statement that is later added in court will be treated as an improvement, not an explanation.
- Defence counsel should aggressively cross-examine complainants on discrepancies between police statements and trial testimony.
- Courts will treat such inconsistencies as indicators of fabrication, not mere memory lapses.
