A criminal appeal by the State challenging the acquittal of an accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court held the lower court gave cogent reasons and found a lack of evidence regarding bribe demand and acceptance, refusing leave to interfere.
Leave refused and the criminal appeal rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
:1:
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1057 OF 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders.
of Coram, appearance, Court’s
orders or directions and
Registrar’s orders.
Ms. M.M. Mhatre, APP. for the State.
Mr.V.V.Purwant for the Respondents.
CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J.
DATED : FEBRUARY 6, 2006.
P.C.
1. This is an appeal filed by the
State impugning a judgment and order
dated 10.1.2003 passed by the Special
Judge, Solapur acquitting the accused
for an offence punishable under Section
7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act. On
perusal of the impugned judgment and
order it appears that the same has been
passed on cogent and acceptable
reasons. According to the complainant,
first demand of bribe was made on
13.1.1999 and the amount was to be paid
on 16.1.1999. The Trial Court has
noted that this is an improvement as
:2:
there is no reference of demand dated
13.1.1999 in the complaint. The second
demand said to have been made on
15.1.1999 but the court has observed
that there could not have been such
demand because licence for kerosene was
given on 15.1.1900. The bribe amount
according to the complaint was given to
accused on 15.1.1999. Apart from this,
as far as acceptance is concerned, the
reliance is placed on the admission
given by the Investigating Officer to
the effect that the accused was
permitted to collect flag day
collection. The Investigating Officer
has further admitted that the accused
had supplied flag day tickets. The
complainant admitted that the amount
was collected for flag day collection
and he also purchased flag day tickets
every year. In the circumstances, not
a fit case to interfere in the impugned
judgment and order. Hence, leave
refused and consequently, the appeal is
rejected.
:3:
(R. S. MOHITE, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Special Judge's acquittal of the accused.
Whether the evidence regarding bribe demand and acceptance was sufficient to sustain conviction.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The State
The Respondents
R.S. MOHITE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court