The Bombay High Court's judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Ashok Haribhau Abnave reaffirms the stringent evidentiary standards under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court upheld the acquittal of a police constable, emphasizing that the prosecution must prove demand, acceptance, and valid sanction beyond reasonable doubt, with corroboration from independent witnesses.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case originated from a complaint lodged by the owner of 'Hotel Sapna' in Ahmednagar. The complainant alleged that the respondent, a police constable, demanded Rs. 10,000 as a bribe to avoid his arrest in connection with a criminal complaint. The amount was negotiated down to Rs. 5,000, with Rs. 2,000 paid in advance. The complainant subsequently approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), leading to a trap operation.
Procedural History
The case progressed through the following stages:
- 2007: Complaint filed with ACB, followed by a trap operation.
- 2007: Charge sheet filed under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- 2011: Trial court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case.
- 2012: State of Maharashtra filed a criminal appeal before the Bombay High Court.
Relief Sought
The appellant, the State of Maharashtra, sought to set aside the acquittal and convict the respondent for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent, however, urged the Court to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish demand, acceptance, and valid sanction.
The Legal Issue
The central questions before the Court were:
- Whether the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, with corroboration from independent witnesses.
- Whether the sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was valid and based on application of mind.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant (State of Maharashtra)
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) contended that:
- The testimony of the complainant remained intact and established demand and acceptance.
- Anthracene traces on the accused's hands and handkerchief corroborated the acceptance of the bribe.
- The trial court erred in disregarding the portions of the shadow panch's testimony that supported the prosecution.
- The sanctioning authority had applied its mind, and minor discrepancies in the sanction order should not invalidate it.
For the Respondent (Accused)
The learned counsel for the respondent argued that:
- The prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance due to lack of corroboration from the shadow panch, a crucial independent witness.
- The sanction for prosecution was invalid as the sanctioning authority did not apply its mind to the investigation papers.
- The complainant's testimony was riddled with omissions and improvements, rendering it unreliable.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a re-appreciation of the evidence and addressed the two key issues:
Demand and Acceptance
The Court examined the testimonies of the complainant (PW1) and the shadow panch (PW3). It noted that:
- The complainant's testimony was inconsistent with his earlier statements to the police, particularly regarding the telephonic conversation with the accused and the handover of money.
- The shadow panch, an independent witness, did not support the prosecution's version. He deposed that he remained at the counter while the complainant went outside, and the conversation between the complainant and the accused was already over by the time he reached them.
"The sum total of above discussion is that, firstly, complainant’s testimony is full of omissions and improvements. Whatever he deposed does not find place in the pre-trap panchanama or post-trap panchanama. 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 the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance with cogent and reliable evidence, as required under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Validity of Sanction
The Court also scrutinized the sanction for prosecution granted by the Superintendent of Police (PW2). It observed that:
- The sanctioning authority admitted to summoning the accused for a preliminary inquiry, but no record of such an inquiry was found in the investigation papers.
- The sanction order was silent on whether the accused was given a personal hearing, raising doubts about the application of mind.
- The sanctioning authority was unaware that the complainant was a history-sheeter, further indicating a lack of thorough scrutiny of the investigation papers.
The Court concluded that the sanction was invalid as it did not meet the requirements of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which mandates that the sanctioning authority must apply its mind to the facts of the case.
The Verdict
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove demand, acceptance, and valid sanction beyond reasonable doubt, as required under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Corroboration from Independent Witnesses Is Mandatory
The judgment underscores the importance of corroboration from independent witnesses in corruption cases. Practitioners must:
- Ensure that the testimony of the complainant is supported by independent witnesses, such as the shadow panch in trap operations.
- Highlight inconsistencies in the testimony of independent witnesses, as these can fatally weaken the prosecution's case.
Sanction Must Reflect Application of Mind
The validity of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a critical issue in corruption cases. The judgment clarifies that:
- The sanctioning authority must apply its mind to the investigation papers and record its reasons for granting sanction.
- Mere mechanical approval of sanction is insufficient. The sanction order must reflect due diligence, including scrutiny of the accused's role and the evidence against them.
- Discrepancies in the sanction order, such as the absence of a personal hearing, can render the sanction invalid.
Prosecution Must Prove All Ingredients Beyond Doubt
The judgment reaffirms that the prosecution must prove all ingredients of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 beyond reasonable doubt. This includes:
- Demand of bribe: The prosecution must establish that the accused explicitly or implicitly demanded a bribe.
- Acceptance of bribe: The prosecution must prove that the accused accepted the bribe, with corroboration from independent evidence.
- Valid sanction: The prosecution must ensure that the sanction for prosecution is valid and based on application of mind.
