The State of Maharashtra v. Masu Krishna Chavan and Anr.
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court allowed an appeal challenging an acquittal in a corruption case. Upholding the trial court's decision, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the sine qua non of demanding illegal gratification and that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer required confirmation of the acquittal under the AIHC Act.
What did the court decide?
Appeal dismissed; acquittal confirmed. Further, the Government/Appropriate Authority was directed to pay pensionary benefits, increments, promotions, and interest to the respondent within 30 days. Dep
What the court decided
209.Apeal-1313-2003.doc
1 / 15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1313 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra ) ….Appellant/Complainant
V/s.
- Masu Krishna Chavan, ) Age about : 52 years, Occ.: Service-Circle ) Officer, Karvir, District - Kolhapur ) 2. Eknath Parasu Satpute, ) Age about : 30 years, Occ.: Service, ) R/o. Sadoli Khalasa, Tal.: Karvir, ) Dist.: Kolhapur ) .….Respondents/Accused
Ms. Anamika Malhotra, APP for State – Appellant.
CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J. DATE : 12th FEBRUARY 2020
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated 2nd June 2003 passed by the Special Judge, Kolhapur, acquitting the accused of offences punishable under Section 7 (Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act), Section 13 (1) (d), 13 (2) and Section 12 (Punishment for abetment of offences defined in section 7 or 11) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only when there are very substantial and compelling reasons.
Whether the demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer, who orchestrated the trap, warrants reversal of acquittal.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
The State of Maharashtra
- respondent
Masu Krishna Chavan
- respondent
Eknath Parasu Satpute
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court